Preamble

The House met at half Two o'clock

PRAYERS

[MR. SPEAKER in the Chair]

PRIVATE BUSINESS

TEIGNMOUTH QUAY COMPANY BILL (By Order)

SOUTH YORKSHIRE LIGHT RAIL TRANSIT BILL (By Order)

BEXLEY LONDON BOROUGH COUNCIL BILL (By Order)

SHOREHAM PORT AUTHORITY BILL (By Order)

Orders for Second reading read.

To be read a Second time upon Thursday 12 June.

MILFORD HAVEN PORT AUTHORITY BILL (By Order)

Order read for resuming adjourned debate on Question [18 February],. That the Bill be now read a Second time.

Debate to be resumed Thursday 12 June.

Oral Answers to Questions — NORTHERN IRELAND

United States (Extradition Treaty)

Mr. Adley: asked the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland if he will make a statement on his recent discussions in the United States of America concerning the proposed extradition treaty covering those facing terrorism charges in the United Kingdom and taking refuge in the United States of America.

The Secretary of State for Northern Ireland (Mr. Tom King): My purpose in visiting the United States was to meet leading Americans who take a close interest in Northern Ireland affairs. Among the matters discussed were the supplementary extradition treaty, the MacBride principles and the international fund. I am satisfied that the many Senators, Congressmen and others I met recognise the importance of achieving early ratification of a satisfactory treaty, and I hope that that will be achieved.

Mr. Adley: I thank my right hon. Friend for that reply. However, has he noticed that the opposition of Senators and Congressmen is argued strongly on constitutional grounds? Does he agree that that may be humbug when considered alongside the behaviour of the same Senators and Congressmen in responding to requests for extradition by the Israeli Government for alleged terrorists? Will he

tell those with whom he is in contact that this form of vote-grubbing, ethnic politics, when considered with tourist cancellations and the behaviour meted out to Mark Thatcher, which was announced this morning, is generating a dangerous level of anti-American feeling in this country?

Mr. King: I tried to convey some of the feelings that my hon. Friend has conveyed robustly to the House in the context of the importance that we attach to working closely with the United States Government in the joint fight against terrorism. I made it clear that that was vital. After the Toyko summit, where President Reagan and my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister stood closely together in agreement on the importance of improving arrangements in the fight against international terrorism, and specifically mentioned the importance of effective extradition, it would be tragic if the two leaders of the Western world in this respect were unable to reach agreement.

Mr. Mason: Is the Secretary of State aware that if America means business in tackling terrorism, the supplementary extradition treaty should be ratified as he proposes? What aspects of Noraid have been outlawed in the United States, and what progress did the Secretary of State make on that? Is it not time that the President told his people to stop cowering at home, chicken-hearted as they are in the face of terrorism, and to get out into the world and especially visit Britain, which is a safer haven than America?

Mr. King: Without commenting on the right hon. Gentleman's last point, I must say that there are some muddled ideas in the United States about the risks that are involved in terrorism. One American told me that Americans thought that Europe was too dangerous to visit this year but they might come to Ireland instead. I sought to correct the Americans' problems with their perception of terrorism, and I tried to emphasise once again the safety and security of the United Kingdom and how welcome they would be as visitors.
I also raised the matter of fund raising. I was grateful for the extremely robust approach of the Administration and the President's latest press conference and broadcast to the nation, which made clear his commitment to supporting the United Kingdom on extradition. I was also very grateful for the clear support for responsible fund raising, and I emphasised the importance of that. It is significant that Speaker O'Neill is the leader of the alternative fund, and that is encouraging funds to go through responsible organisations and not through terrorist organisations.

Sir Adam Butler: I am sure that my right hon. Friend argued the British case on the extradition treaty very strongly, but I want to emphasise the points that have already been made about the strength of feeling on this matter. Does my right hon. Friend agree that if the treaty were rejected by the Senate it would have immense consequences for the Anglo-American relationship, and, in view of the support that we gave to the Americans in the Libyan crisis and in the light of the Tokyo conference, to which he has already referred, it would, to quote the American ambassador,
reek of selfishness and hypocrisy
if that treaty were rejected? May we have a message from the House of Commons on behalf of the British people that


they will not readily understand nor easily forgive those Senators who vote against the measure, and that even the best of friendships has a price?

Mr. King: I should like to report to my hon. Friend and to the House that that was very much the message that I sought to deliver during my visit to Washington. I should like to feel that it was very generally received, and I respect that, along with the support that we had. I pay tribute to the President, and I include Ambassador Price in my remarks. He has given clear and unequivocal leadership in this issue, which we appreciate. As my hon. Friend rightly says, it simply would not be understood, when it is perceived that the first asset of any terrorist is a passport, if we were to allow that facility between two of the leading nations of the Western world so that terrorists can thumb their noses and escape scot free.

Ms. Clare Short: Will the right hon. Gentleman tell us what he had to say while he was in the United States about the MacBride principles? I understand that the Government are opposed to them, yet their aim is surely to encourage American firms in Northern Ireland to move against discrimination, which is far too high in employment? Why are the British Government opposed to the MacBride principles if they are in favour——

Mr. Speaker: Order. Is this to do with extradition?

Ms. Short: The Secretary of State mentioned the MacBride principles in his main answer.
If the Government are in favour of eliminating discrimination, why are they against the MacBride principles?

Mr. King: The British Government are committed to the elimination of discrimination in employment. The Fair Employment Agency was set up by the Fair Employment (Northern Ireland) Act 1976 to achieve exactly those objectives. The problem about the MacBride principles is that in certain respects they are in conflict with our legislation. Our legal advice is that they will lead to legal actions, which will lead to problems for the companies concerned. The problem now is that the threat behind the MacBride principles is disinvestment. That is the sanction that is to be applied. I genuinely believe that, far from helping employment for the minority community, they are a threat to all employment in Northern Ireland. They will discourage investment and will penalise the employment not only of Protestants—the majority community—but of Catholics. If the hon. Lady talks to the hon. Member for Foyle (Mr. Hume) and the Irish Government, who have been vocal advocates of fair employment, she will find that they are equally opposed to the application of the MacBride principles.

Mr. Stanbrook: Before the treaty was signed, what consideration was given to the chances of getting this through Congress, bearing in mind that Congress alone has the power of ratification of treaties in the United States and that the treaty's provisions go far further than do most extradition treaties? Were we not asking the Americans too much?

Mr. King: I am appalled at my hon. Friend's contribution. I am not sure in what respect he would propose amendments to the treaty that we have. There have been suggestions that people who murder by rifle, not machine gun, or by explosion, but not machine gun, might somehow be exempted. I do not know in what respect my

hon. Friend suggests amendment. Those amendments are unacceptable to me. I said clearly in the United States that murder is murder and that those who commit terrorist offences should be brought back. That should be the pattern for future extradition treaties. Of course it cannot be guaranteed in advance that the Senate will advise and consent to ratification, but I very much hope that it will on this occasion.

Mr. Archer: Does the right hon. Gentleman recognise that the argument is said to arise from a reluctance to extradite for political offences? First, will he confirm that the House unanimously rejects any suggestion that gangsterism in any cause is a political activity? Can he or his colleagues in the Government help the international community to formulate a criterion which will recognise the legitimate limits of political asylum while ensuring that the civilised world contains no hiding place for those who live by the gun?

Mr. King: I should like to feel that this House is as good a bastion as either of the Houses of Government in the United States for the genuine rights of political asylum. We are distinguishing between those who hold genuine political beliefs and those who use terrorist methods in the pursuit of certain activities. Those are the people whom we cannot tolerate in a civilised society.

Anglo-Irish Agreement

Mr. Yeo: asked the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland if he will make a statement about progress in implementing the Anglo-Irish agreement.

Mr. Canavan: asked the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what recent talks he has had with representatives of the Government of the Republic of Ireland.

Mr. Tom King: The Anglo-Irish agreement has now been in force for six months. During that time the Intergovernmental Conference has met five times. The last meeting took place in London on 9 May. The joint statements issued after each meeting have been placed in the Library of the House.

Mr. Yeo: Is my right hon. Friend aware that the vast majority of the people of the United Kingdom strongly support this agreement and recognise that it will take some considerable time for its full benefits to be felt? Is he further aware that if there had been any doubts about the wisdom of the agreement they would rapidly have been removed by the apparent attitude of hostility and concern which the IRA and other men of violence express towards the agreement?

Mr. King: There is no doubt that the IRA is the organisation which most fears this agreement. It sees the agreement as a major threat, and it is right to do so. It is our determination to smash terrorism, and through that agreement it is now the joint determination of the Government of the United Kingdom and the Government of the Republic. However, it is also an approach that recognises in the agreement that while the majority has its rights and traditions, there is also a minority which has its rights and traditions which also deserve to be respected. Therefore, the Anglo-Irish agreement seeks to deal fairly in both respects by giving the reassurance, with the acceptance of the Republic, of the principle of consent in


the position of Northern Ireland in the United Kingdom, subject to the majority view in Northern Ireland and to give that reassurance to the minority community as well.

Mr. Canavan: As the perfectly justifiable demand for Irish reunification is considered to be too sensitive a subject for inclusion on the agenda for talks with representatives of the Republic, is there at least some hope of discussing other issues of possible agreement, such as the abolition of the killer plastic bullets and the abolition of the supergrass trials, which are an absolute travesty of justice? They would be abolished under the private Member's Bill introduced on Tuesday of this week by the hon. Member for Newry and Armagh (Mr. Mallon).

Mr. King: The Anglo-Irish agreement not only confirms the acceptance by the Government of the Republic of the rights of the majority in Northern Ireland and the principle of consent against being compelled into a united Ireland against its wish, but recognises that no wish to be so compelled exists at present. That is an important confirmation by the Government of the Republic, and that is why the matter is not on the agenda of the conference.
The hon. Gentleman suggested other matters which he believes should be on the agenda. We are discussing measures which might enhance confidence in the administration of justice. Any honest person looking at the problems of terrorist trials, where intimidation makes it impossible to have juries and where many witnesses are intimidated, recognises that there are real problems in seeking to bring terrorists to book. We in the United Kingdom have sought honourably to set up the best system of justice we can, but we have also been prepared to discuss those issues fairly and openly. We shall continue to do so, I hope in a constructive way, and I hope that we will be able to find improvements.

Mr. Gow: In the absence of any prospects for devolution in Northern Ireland on a basis that would be widely acceptable throughout the community, is my right hon. Friend aware that there is a growing body of opinion in the Province which believes that the best way forward now is through integration, which would offer proper safeguards for the minority in Northern Ireland? Will my right hon. Friend confirm that integration is not inconsistent with the Anglo-Irish agreement?

Mr. King: The Government have made clear their commitment to seeking to achieve devolution and devolved government in the Province. I do not accept my hon. Friend's initial premise that there is an absence of any possibility of achieving that. I hope that it will be possible to sit down and discuss ways in which this could be achieved. I make it clear that while the Government are always willing to consider ways in which legislation might be handled, carrying that forward into some concept of total integration would raise difficult issues.

Mr. Campbell-Savours: In recent discussions with representatives of the Irish Government, did the right hon. Gentleman raise again the question of kidnap insurance? Is he aware that the publication Lloyd's Underwriting Syndicates revealed that the Lords Norfolk, St. Helens, Marlborough, Davenport, Romsey, Peel and Freyberg are all names in underwriting firms which are managed by managing agents Cassidy Davies? This firm offers kidnap insurance and has made payments to the IRA. Does the Secretary of State intend to intervene to ensure that the

terms of section 10 of the Prevention of Terrorism (Temporary Provisions) Act are complied with and to stop the sale of this kidnap insurance?

Mr. King: As the hon. Gentleman knows, this is a matter for my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary.

Sir John Biggs-Davison: Is my right hon. Friend aware that Dr. FitzGerald agreed with an RTE radio interviewer on 18 May that Nationalist lives had been put under threat as a result of the agreement, and that that was expected? Was that also expected by Her Majesty's Government when they entered into the agreement?

Mr. King: If Nationalist lives have been put under threat, the threats presumably come from the majority community. I know that my hon. Friend will join me in deploring any threats, whether they come against the police or the Nationalist community, in the present situation in Northern Ireland.

Mr. Archer: Does the Secretary of State recall that those of us who said that the agreement should be given a chance also argued that it should be known by its fruits? After six months, will the right hon. Gentleman enumerate the fruits that are ripening? Have there been any consequences for the provision of jobs, for community welfare or for civil liberties? Can he make any forecast as to when we may expect a harvest?

Mr. King: As I made clear earlier, it will take time for the long-term changes and improvements in attitudes and reconciliation to be apparent. It is already apparent that the groundwork has been laid in the increasingly close cooperation on security, and the right hon. and learned Gentleman will know that a whole series of meetings are taking place, and that a programme of work has been established, not just between the Chief Constable of the RUC and the Commissioner, but right down the line.
The right hon. and learned Gentleman will be aware that since the signing of the Anglo-Irish agreement the Irish Government have signed the European convention on the suppression of terrorism. He will have welcomed, as I did, the significant shift of votes from Sinn Fein to the SDLP in the by-elections as a further illustration of the growing confidence of the Nationalist community in the constitutional approach. A programme of work has now well advanced confidence in the administration of justice and will bring some useful benefits which will be recognised by the Nationalist community as a real prospect of progress.

Marches (Routes)

Mr. Alton: asked the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland if he intends to take action on the recent proposal of the Chief Constable to establish an independent tribunal to deal with the routeing of traditional marches.

The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Northern Ireland (Mr. Nicholas Scott): The Chief Constable's suggestion is one of a number of matters which my right hon. Friend will consider when re viewing public order legislation for Northern Ireland in the light of the Public Order Bill for Great Britain currently before Parliament.

Mr. Alton: Following the violence at Portadown last July and the growing concern about the marching season this year, has the Minister not missed the opportunity of


introducing a real change that would stop Dublin from being blamed for unnecessary interference in deciding where the marches should be routed?

Mr. Scott: The public order legislation that we may be introducing in the autumn is the proper vehicle for any legislative change in this matter. We want to consider carefully this suggestion, among others, some of which have been discussed in the Committee on the Public Order Bill.

Mr. Bill Walker: Is my hon. Friend aware that officers of the Conservative Back-Bench aviation committee visited the United States over the recess, and discussed with Congressman and Senators activities such as the routeing of marches in Northern Ireland? There was confusion in the minds of these opinion formers and leaders in the United States about the democratic way in which we handle such activities. In fact, they were in doubt whether Northern Ireland was a democracy. They were confusing Northern Ireland with the non-democratic activities of other countries over terrorism, marches, and so on. It is that confusion that is causing enormous problems in the United States in presenting Northern Ireland as a democracy.

Mr. Scott: I am sure that my right hon. Friend's visit to the United States will have cleared the minds of a number of people on the matter. My hon. Friend the Member for Peterborough (Dr. Mawhinney) will be in the United States in the near future. We consistently seek to explain the basis and the fairness of society in Northern Ireland, because we need international support in the battle against terrorism and because we want people to invest in the jobs that are so vital to the future of the Province.

William Allen

Mr. Mallon: asked the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what factors led him to advise Her Majesty to exercise the royal prerogative of mercy in respect of William Allen.

Mr. Scott: It is not our practice to give details of reasons for exercise of the royal prerogative of mercy.

Mr. Mallon: Is the Minister aware that there is great concern in Northern Ireland and that confidence in the system of justice has been further eroded by the fact that a criminal who was sentenced to 14 years imprisonment on 52 charges has been released after serving two years? That has confirmed in the minds of many the fact that he sold his evidence for an early release. Does the Minister agree that the exercise of the royal prerogative in that way to such a person is an insult to the person in whose name the royal prerogative is exercised?

Mr. Scott: I shall not comment, because we do not give reasons. Mr. Allen has not been released. If and when he is, he will have served substantially in excess of the two years mentioned by the hon. Gentleman.

Security

Mr. Proctor: asked the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland if he will make a statement on the current security situation in the Province.

Mr. Portillo: asked the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland whether he will make a statement on the security situation in Northern Ireland.

Mr. Tom King: Since I last answered questions in the House on 1 May there have been 10 deaths in incidents arising from the security situation in the Province. Six of those killed were civilians, two were police officers, one was an Army major, and one was a corporal in the UDR. I am sure that the whole House will join me in condemning those murders. The security forces have continued their efforts to prevent terrorist activity and to bring to justice those responsible for terrorist crimes. So far this year 264 people have been charged with serious offences, including one with murder and 17 with attempted murder. In the same period, 96 weapons, 10,600 rounds of ammunition and 1,200 lb of explosives have been recovered.

Mr. Proctor: Is it not clear that, despite the Anglo-Irish agreement, the murderous campaign of the IRA continues, particularly in the frontier areas? Is it not also clear that, despite the concessions made by the United Kingdom in the agreement, there has not been a single effective and practical quid pro quo from the Dublin Government regarding security?

Mr. King: If my hon. Friend had heard my answer earlier, he would know that that is not true. Co-operation is increasing. There is no doubt that the IRA sees the agreement as a serious threat. There is no doubt also that it will seek, if it can, to maintain a level of violence and to try to get people such as my hon. Friend to ask such questions.

Mr. Portillo: My right hon. Friend has already expressed the view that the IRA has more to fear from the Anglo-Irish agreement than has anyone else. When does he expect the crossover to come, when the IRA activity to undermine the agreement will diminish and some benefits will be seen from the agreement?

Mr. King: I have never understated the seriousness of the threat and the capability that the IRA maintains. That is why anyone wishing to address the issue seriously and who cares about lives in Northern Ireland does not try to turn it into an argument about the Anglo-Irish agreement, but recognises the reality of the terrorist threat, which is international in scope, and realises that we must tackle it by every weapon at our disposal, and makes quite clear our commitment to do so. I hope that I shall have the full support of hon. Members in that respect.

Mr. J. Enoch Powell: Has the Secretary of State been reading the items in the provincial press about the involvement of the CIA in the political situation in Northern Ireland? If not, will he ask his officials to show them to him?

Mr. King: I have to say that I have missed those items. If the right hon. Gentleman cares to send them to me, I shall read them with fascination.

Mr. Winnick: In denouncing the IRA's crimes—I have never hesitated in so doing, and there is no reason why I should—is it not necessary to bear in mind the murders committed by paramilitaries on the other side? Is the Secretary of State aware that a Protestant women was murdered in her bed by such a gang because she had recently married a Catholic? How can those who carry out such foul murders claim that they are Unionists and part and parcel of the United Kingdom? Should they not be denounced for what they are—murderous scum?

Mr. King: I have no hesitation in denouncing those who are guilty of sectarian murders. I believe that I speak


for every Member in the House, whatever views he or she may hold about the Union in any respect, and whatever arguments we may have, when I say that sectarian killings are utterly contemptible and have nothing to do with the honourable tradition of Unionism. Equally, the violence and murders committed by the IRA have nothing to do with the responsible constitutional tradition of Nationalism. Violent extremists are enemies of all who seek the constitutional approach.

Mr. Hayes: Does my right hon. Friend regret the fact that the newly installed lord mayor of Belfast, Mr. Sammy Wilson. has pledged himself and, sadly, his office, to opposing the Anglo-Irish agreement? Does he not believe that all those who are opposed to the Anglo-Irish agreement are dancing to the terrorists' tune, whether advertently or inadvertently?

Mr. King: The position of the lord mayor is one that should rise above political issues of that sort. The first citizen of Belfast, above all, should genuinely give a lead towards reconciliation and better relations. I hope very much that the new incumbent will, on reflection, feel that that is the course for which he would wish to be remembered.

Mr. Bell: I say at the outset that Her Majesty's Opposition fully associate themselves with the Secretary of State's remarks in the condemnation of violence, death and destruction in Northern Ireland, whether it comes from one side or the other of the sectarian divide. We are somewhat appalled at some of the supplementary questions that the right hon. Gentleman has had to answer from Conservative Back Benchers.
Is it not a fact that there has been a steady number of meetings between the RUC and the Garda, that quiet and steady work is continuing on cross-border security, and that that must be to the benefit of everyone who lives in the island of Ireland?

Mr. King: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for making those points. The House knows that I can never give facts about security to the House. So much of the work and the effective development that is taking place cannot be made public and cannot be claimed as political achievements, which might be done in other areas of political life. However, I can say that this work is going forward and that I am encouraged by the progress that is being made.

Anglo-Irish Agreement

Mr. Flannery: asked the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what recent representations he has received front the Unionist parties in Northern Ireland about the Anglo-Irish agreement; and if he will make a statement.

Mr. Parry: asked the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what recent representations he has received from the Unionist parties in Northern Ireland about the Anglo-Irish agreement; and if he will make a statement.

Mr. Tom King: Unionist elected representatives have regrettably not been communicating with Ministers at the Northern Ireland Office. I have, however, attended meetings with Unionist leaders in company with the Prime Minister, when they put forward their views on the agreement.

Mr. Flannery: Does the Secretary of State remember that it was in 1969, against the background of a march for rights by Nationalist groupings, that the violence broke out? Is he aware that for about 50 years there has been a complete lack of democracy in Northern Ireland, where the Unionist party has tyrannised, no matter what he says about the honourable tradition of Unionism, the Nationalist groupings? Is it not time that something was done to try to ascertain whether there is any division between the Official Unionists and the hardliners of the DUP? Unless that becomes clear, it will be obvious to everyone that the Unionists want only to go back to the old Stormont and once again tyrannise the Nationalist groupings.

Mr. King: I reject the hon. Gentleman's comments, especially those about the tradition of Unionism. I recall the efforts of Lord O'Neill and the late Mr. Brian Faulkner to accommodate and recognise the rights of the minority as well in seeking to find a way in which there could be widespread acceptance of an Administration in Northern Ireland. I shall not comment on the latter part of the hon. Gentleman's question. Relations between political parties are matters for them.

Mr. Michael McNair-Wilson: If my right hon. Friend was persuaded that the Anglo-Irish agreement was not only an affront to the Unionist parties but a roadblock in the way of any round table talks between all the political parties in Northern Ireland, may I hope that he will show flexibility in putting the treaty to one side, as being of less importance than the setting up of an effective local administration in Northern Ireland?

Mr. King: My hon. Friend leads me into the terrible temptations of hypothetical questions. There is a growing recognition, shared by the leaders of all the churches in Northern Ireland, that we need talks, without preconditions, and that we must sit down and find a way forward. That is something that my hon. Friend and the House will know I have been urging for some time. I think there is a growing feeling in Northern Ireland that that is the way forward. Despite the frustrations, I hope that, at last, we will see some development in that respect.

Mr. Cormack: Is not an unhappy aspect of the boycott—I use the word deliberately—the fact that the Unionist Members are absenting themselves from this place—[interruption.] Almost all of them. Would it not help immeasurably if they came to the House for Northern Ireland Questions?

Mr. King: We must except the presence of the right hon. Member for South Down (Mr. Powell), who is recognised as a most assiduous attender in the House, but his presence is the exception that proves the rule. I understand that a campaign is running to try to win over hearts and minds to the Unionist cause in opposition to the Anglo-Irish agreement, but it is the only campaign I know that seems to think it will succeed by silence and abstinence.

Ms. Clare Short: Does the Secretary of State admit that we are seeing a new version of the Unionist veto, in that all their intransigent opposition to the Anglo-Irish agreement is blocking the progress that was promised by the agreement in real reforms to benefit the Nationalist community of the North? The Government do not dare to


move down that road, because they are misbehaving so grossly about the agreement, and in that way they are achieving exactly what they wanted in the first place.

Mr. King: The hon. Lady knows from my earlier answers that that is incorrect. The work goes on and will continue. We have made that clear, and I reaffirm it now.

Mr. Budgen: After my right hon. Friend directly interfered in the domestic politics of the United States, did he quietly reflect upon the effectiveness and usefulness of politicians in one nation state interfering in the domestic politics of another, especially in relation to the Anglo-Irish agreement?

Mr. King: My hon. Friends seem to have a rather liverish attitude to certain of these issues today. Although that may be my hon. Friend's view, such a comment was not made to me by any Members of the Senate or the House of Representatives, who were extremely welcoming and very grateful for the opportunity to discuss the issue.

Prison Officers Association

Mr. Peter Bruiruinvels: asked the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland when he last met the Northern Ireland Prison Officers Association; and what subjects were discussed.

Mr. Scott: In view of my day-to-day responsibility for prisons in Northern Ireland, I normally represent my right hon. Friend at meetings with the Northern Ireland Prison Officers Association. I last met National and Northern Ireland Prison Officers' Association representatives on 4 October 1985, when we discussed the future employment of prison officers and their roles; prison regime and operational matters of mutual interest; and the programme for opening Maghaberry prisons and amalgamating both prisons at Maze.

Mr. Bruinvels: Bearing in mind the brave work of the prison officers in Northern Ireland and the sad fact that 24 of them have lost their lives in the past 10 years, may I ask my hon. Friend whether he has increased their protection and security, not just in the prisons, but round their homes, where they are under constant threat of being attacked and beaten up?

Mr. Scott: Where there is evidence of a specific threat, members of the prison service, like police officers and others, receive the full support of the police and the Northern Ireland Office in obtaining protection. I echo my hon. Friend's tribute to prison officers in Northern Ireland for the duty that they undertake on behalf of the whole community there.

Mr. Dickens: Next time my hon. Friend meets the Northern Ireland Prison Officers Association, will he stress that as many of its prisoners are bomb and explosive experts, and that when they escape they may often maim, murder and strike again, they must be more vigilant than any other prison service in the United Kingdom?

Mr. Scott: The Prison Officers Association and prison officers in Northern Ireland need no lectures from me on such matters. They are fully aware of the unique nature of the prison population in Northern Ireland and the threat that prisoners could pose to peace and stability in the Province.

Action for Community Employment

Mr. Dubs: asked the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what are the criteria of the Department of Economic Development in providing Action for Community Employment funding in Northern Ireland; and, if he will make a statement.

The Minister of State, Northern Ireland Office (Dr. Rhodes Boyson): The main criteria for ACE projects are as follows. First, the project must provide something of benefit to the community; secondly, the project sponsor must employ adults who are long-term unemployed; and, thirdly, existing jobs must not be put at risk. I am pleased to report that in Northern Ireland there are now 5,600 people employed under ACE.

Mr. Dubs: While I understand the Government's obvious concern that public money should not be channelled to organisations which have links with paramilitary groups, is it not easier to make such accusations than to prove them? Will the Minister reconsider the position of four groups in Northern Ireland—Dove House, Shantallow, the Top of the Hill Tenants Association and Conway Street Mill in Belfast—where 47 jobs have so far been lost, to see whether they could not be deemed to be eligible for continuing public support?

Dr. Boyson: I understand the hon. Gentleman's concern about the matter, and it is shared by other hon. Members. We have had considerable correspondence, especially on one of the four groups that he mentioned. Only 1 per cent. of people who apply for ACE schemes are rejected on security grounds. It is extremely difficult to make that decision. On the other hand, the previous Secretary of State made it clear in a written answer on 27 June 1985 that such payments must be carefully watched. Otherwise, there is a grave risk of directly or indirectly improving the standing and furthering the aims of paramilitary organisations which would obviously be against the public interest.

Mr. Holt: My hon. Friend will know that one aspect of the Anglo-Irish agreement was of America giving the United Kingdom money, whether we wanted it or not. Has any of that money been channelled through this organisation for economic development? If so, how much has been spent? If not, what channel is being used, how much of this year's £50 million has been received, and how many jobs have been created?

Dr. Boyson: None of that money has been spent along the lines suggested. Indeed, the suggestion of money is still, as it were, bogged down in the Senate. We would welcome any international fund or help, particularly where there were no limitations on the way in which the money could be spent.

Mr. Hume: The Minister will be aware of my detailed correspondence with him about one organisation mentioned by the hon. Member for Battersea (Mr. Dubs). Is he aware of the public invitation by Dove House for anyone sent by the Minister to carry out the most thorough investigation into its activities? Does he agree that that is a reasonable offer, and that in those circumstances he should review its case and send someone to investigate what it is doing?

Dr. Boyson: The Secretary of State and I are prepared to review cases at any time, but we must be sure that there is no threat of money going to paramilitary organisations. There is no closed door at any time on these issues.

Mr. Mallon: Is the Minister aware that, because of a developing social security paranoia in the north of Ireland, almost every golf and rugby club is being improved through the ACE scheme, and that the socially deprived areas, where the money is most needed, are at greatest risk because that is where the paranoia is having its effect? Does he agree that that is extremely dangerous?

Dr. Boyson: I am not entirely clear about the hon. Gentleman's point, but obviously I will talk to him about it. After the results this week of British teams in the World Cup, perhaps we can help their facilities at the same time.

Mr. Archer: May I beg the Minister to consider whether it is possible that he is wrong about this? Does he accept that some of us have looked closely at the groups enumerated by my hon. Friend the Member for Battersea (Mr. Dubs), and that, if we had found any evidence to suggest that any of them was a front for criminal activities, we would not be pursuing this matter? Is the hon. Gentleman further aware that Bishop Daly has endorsed our conclusions? For the sake of these desperately deprived communities, will the hon. Gentleman consider the suggestion of the hon. Member for Foyle (Mr. Hume), which was to appoint an independent investigator, or does he prefer to be suspected of doing what the Government did in England to community groups in the areas of the GLC and the metropolitan counties?

Dr. Boyson: As I have already said, only seven out of between 600 and 700 groups have had money withheld. The money was withheld because we received advice that they were a security risk. Withholding that money is not an attempt to deprive people of money in poor areas. Indeed, the other 600 to 700 groups exist largely in such areas.

Oral Answers to Questions — PRIME MINISTER

Engagements

Sir John Biggs-Davison: asked the Prime Minister if she will list her official engagements for Thursday 5 June.

The Prime Minister (Mrs. Margaret Thatcher): This morning I presided at a meeting of the Cabinet and had meetings with ministerial colleagues and others. In addition to my duties in this House I shall be having further meetings later today, including one with the Prime Minister of New Zealand.

Sir John Biggs-Davison: I applaud the Prime Minister's championship of family life, to which Labour party elements in London show such hostility, but will she turn her attention urgently to another aspect of the Judeo-Christian ethic, and follow her support of the Unborn Children (Protection) Bill, introduced by the right hon. Member for South Down (Mr. Powell), by ensuring that there is legislation to outlaw experiments on embryonic human beings?

The Prime Minister: My hon. Friend is correct to say that that Bill is a matter of great public interest and that it found much support on both sides of the House, but, as

he will know, many different views have been expressed, and before the Government could introduce any legislation they would have to take into account the many differing views.

Mr. Steel: With reference to the Prime Minister's speech yesterday to the Conservative women's conference, is she aware that the theories that she expounded then on how to reduce unemployment have been implemented by her for the past seven years? What makes the right hon. Lady think that they will be any more successful in future than they have been so far?

The Prime Minister: As the right hon. Gentleman is aware, in the past three years almost 1 million new jobs have been created—(Interruption.] That would seem to mean that we are going in the right direction.

Mr. Greenway: asked the Prime Minister if she will list her official engagements for Thursday 5 June.

The Prime Minister: I refer my hon. Friend to the reply that I gave some moments ago.

Mr. Greenway: Will my right hon. Friend confirm that the 1971 and 1981 immigration Acts are not racially discriminatory, that the Government have no plans to repeal them, and that to do so would increase unemployment and lead to difficulties that do not now exist between different groups in this country? Does my right hon. Friend agree that the plans of the Leader of the Opposition would achieve just that?

The Prime Minister: I confirm that it is our intention to maintain both the Immigration Act 1971, with its immigration controls, and the British Nationality Act 1981. Any reduction of the controls on immigration into this country would be highly damaging to good race relations.

Mr. Alfred Morris: Is the Prime Minister prepared to say how much the Government expect to raise in value added tax from the widely acclaimed activities of Sport Aid? Is she aware that every penny of the money raised is intended for Africa's poor, not for the Treasury? Why can she not make a matching payment to compensate the charity for the amount that it will have to pay in VAT?

The Prime Minister: As the right hon. Gentleman is aware, this matter comes up from time to time and came up under previous Governments. No Government have been able to exempt all charities from VAT. By way of tax relief, this Government have done more than any other to help the funds of charities.

Mr. Heathcoat-Amory: Is my right hon. Friend aware of the strength of feeling that exists in my constituency and in that of my hon. Friend the Member for Somerton and Frome (Mr. Boscawen) about the activities of so-called hippies who show contempt for every aspect of organised society, except the social security office? Does she agree that the present law is inadequate to cope with this threat, and will she undertake to draft legislation to make it possible for people to clear land that is being occupied by these travelling gangs?

The Prime Minister: As I and my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary have said, if the present law is inadeqate, we will have to introduce fresh law. In many cases, the present law is adequate. The problem is how to deal with people who accept all the advantages and


benefits of a free society but refuse to rise to their responsibilities. We shall have to look afresh at this whole question.

Mr. Canavan: asked the Prime Minister if she will list her official engagements for Thursday 5 June.

The Prime Minister: I refer the hon. Gentleman to the reply that I gave some moments ago.

Mr. Canavan: When the Prime Minister got carried away yesterday with her own empty rhetoric about her vision of a little bit of heaven on earth for everybody, did she forget that we have over 4 million people unemployed, that over 7 million people are living at the official poverty level, that over 1·5 million people are waiting for houses, and that over 750,000 people are waiting to go into hospital? Will the Prime Minister return to the real world and realise that instead of a heaven on earth in Britain today, the reality of Thatcherism is a living hell?

The Prime Minister: The phrase "heaven on earth" came from Mrs. Eleanor Bonner when she was contrasting life in a free society, which is heaven on earth, with life in the Socialist society of Soviet Russia, from which she came. She found that heaven on earth was being able to own one's own home and get operations in the West which she could not get in the Soviet Union.

Mr. Ralph Howell: Bearing in mind the widespread reports that my right hon. Friend was highly impressed by the recent "Panorama" programme about workfare schemes in the United States, will she now set up a pilot workfare scheme with a view to a nation-wide workfare scheme for all able-bodied and long-term unemployed? Does she realise that such a scheme would make life difficult for hippy convoys, would make it difficult for those foreign visitors who can claim £78 a week as soon as they report into a hotel in Britain, and would generally stop abuse of the welfare system?

The Prime Minister: I know how keen my hon. Friend is on that. We are looking into the way in which workfare operates in the United States. We are finding that some of the things that we have, such as the community programme and jobstart, would rank as workfare schemes in the United States. As my hon. Friend knows, some of those schemes are being extended. I am only too delighted to do anything I can to make life difficult for such things as hippy convoys.

Mr. Kinnock: On reflection, does the Prime Minister not think that she was wrong to use the words of a very courageous woman, Mrs. Bonner, for the partisan purposes for which she sought to use them yesterday? Does she recall saying that her policy starts with the family, its freedom and well-being? Is there not a huge inconsistency between those words and her deeds over seven years of government, which have inflicted unemployment on an extra 2 million people, poverty on an extra 4 million people and bad housing and inadequate education on millions more? What about their freedom and their well-being, or does she not think that they belong to families?

The Prime Minister: Mrs. Bonner used those words in contrasting the benefits of a free society with the benefits of a Socialist society of the kind in which Mrs. Bonner lives. Housing is much better under this Government than it was under Labour; so are the health

services; so is the standard of living. That is the right hon. Gentleman's problem. We are doing far better than his Government did.

Mr. Kinnock: The Prime Minister compounds her dishonesty and only demonstrates—[Interruption.]

Mr. Speaker: Order. Will the right hon. Gentleman please rephrase that question?

Mr. Kinnock: The right hon. Lady compounds the distorted use of words when she gives the impression that there are only two alternatives in this world—the Soviet society and her society—although she knows perfectly well that there are decent democratic alternatives to both kinds of society. If the Prime Minister really believes that housing is better under the Conservatives, how does she explain the worst record for housing starts in this country at any time since before the second world war?

The Prime Minister: On housing, 1·3 million new homes have been built in Great Britain since 1979; 900,000 public sector council houses and flats have been sold to their tenants; home ownership is up to 62 per cent.; and 55 per cent. of blue collar workers own their homes, compared with 40 per cent. in 1979 under the Labour Government.

Sir Peter Emery: Does my right hon. Friend realise that the answer that she gave earlier to my hon. Friend the Member for Wells (Mr. Heathcoat-Amory) is not as satisfactory as some of us would like? Will she give a positive assurance to the farming community that the Government will ensure that by this time next year there is legislation to make certain that innocent people cannot have their lives ruined, that the farming community cannot lose out, and that in fact positive steps will be taken to ensure that vagrant hippies cannot invade in the way that they have invaded during the past few months?

The Prime Minister: I make it perfectly clear to my hon. Friend the if fresh legislation on criminal trespass is needed to deter hippies, it will be introduced.

Mr. Straw: asked the Prime Minister if she will list her official engagements for Thursday 5 June.

The Prime Minister: I refer the hon. Gentleman to the reply that I gave some moments ago.

Mr. Straw: When the Prime Minister said yesterday that it was no coincidence that the countries with lower taxes produce more jobs and have lower unemployment, was she deluding herself or just the gullible ladies of the Conservative women's conference? Is she not aware that Turkey has the lowest tax take of any OECD country, but unemployment as high as ours, and that of 10 countries with higher tax takes than ours, nine have lower levels of unemployment? Is not the real lesson from these international figures that sensible public spending produces jobs, while her policies destroy jobs?

The Prime Minister: The hon. Gentleman is speaking nonsense. As he knows full well, there are far more jobs and there is far less unemployment in the United States, where personal taxation is a great deal lower and where a Bill that is now before the equivalent of this Chamber in the United States is proposing to make the top tax limit in the United States below the bottom tax limit here. Also, he knows full well that Japan and Switzerland, which have much lower personal taxation than we have here, have far


more jobs and far less unemployment. The fact is that the Labour party likes high taxation. The right hon. Gentleman likes to have his hands in the pockets of the people.

Mr. John Townend: On the question of my hon. Friend the Member for Ealing, North (Mr. Greenway), does my right hon. Friend agree that if the proposals put forward by the Leader of the Opposition in India to change the immigration laws went through, that would increase immigration from the Indian subcontinent and be against the wishes of the vast majority in this country?

The Prime Minister: Yes. I believe that to say anything that would effect a reduction in immigration controls would have a very bad effect on race relations in

this country. I believe that to say that certain Acts would be repealed without saying what would be put in their place is thoroughly irresponsible.

Mr. Redmond: asked the Prime Minister if she will list her official engagements for Thursday 5 June.

The Prime Minister: I refer the hon. Gentleman to the reply that I gave some moments ago.

Mr. Redmond: Who from America advised the Prime Minister that the F111s were more accurate than the carrier-based aircraft?

The Prime Minister: As I said the last time I answered questions, we received advice from the United States and from this country to that effect. — [HON. MEMBERS: "Who?"] That is not for me to reveal.

Business of the House

Mr. Neil Kinnock: May I ask the Leader of the House to state the business for next week?

The Lord Privy Seal and Leader of the House of Commons (Mr. John Biffen): Yes, Sir. The business of the House will be as follows:
MONDAY 9 JUNE—Remaining stages of the National Health Service (Amendment) Bill.
Resolutions relating to the Finance Bill
TUESDAY 10 JUNE—Second Reading of the Education Bill [Lords].
Motion on the Appropriation (No. 2) (Northern Ireland) Order.
WEDNESDAY 11 JUNE—Until about seven o'clock motions on orders and regulations relating to the uprating of social security benefits and other related matters. Details will be given in the Official Report.
Progress on remaining stages of the Financial Services Bill.
Second Reading of the Latent Damage Bill [Lords].
Remaining stages of the Crown Agents (Amendments) Bill.
THURSDAY 12 JUNE—Completion of remaining stages of the Financial Services Bill.
Motion on the Patronage (Benefices) Measure.
FRIDAY 13 JUNE—There will be a debate on enterprise and deregulation on a motion for the Adjournment of the House.
MONDAY I6 JUNE—Opposition Day (15th Allotted Day). There will be a debate on an Opposition motion, the subject for debate to be announced.

Wednesday 11 June:

Social Security Orders and Regulations

Motions on:

Social Security Benefits Uprating Order 1986

Supplementary Benefit Uprating Regulations 1986

Family Income Supplements (Computation) Regulations 1986

Child Benefit (Uprating) Regulations 1986

Pensioners' Lump Sum Payments Order 1986 Motion relating to:

Housing Benefits Amendment (No. 2) Regulations 1986]

Mr. Kinnock: Can the Leader of the House assure us that the Education Bill, when it comes before the House, will be subject to the Special Standing Committee procedure?
When there have been so many justified demands from all parts of the House for a debate on the crisis in the tin mining industry and the effect of closures on the mining communities in Cornwall, why has not the right hon. Gentleman been able to find time for a debate? Can he give me an undertaking that he will arrange for such a debate in Government time in the near future in view of the widespread concern about the matter?
Can we look forward to having in the near future the frequently requested debate on foreign affairs and will the Government give two days for such a debate in view of the very wide range of subjects that now need consideration in the House? Meanwhile, in view of Mr. Le Grange's new banning orders in South Africa and the draconian legislation now before the so-called tricameral Parliament,

can we look forward to a statement next week from the Government that will commit them to direct support for comprehensive sanctions by the Commonwealth?
Will the right hon. Gentleman approach the Foreign Secretary to make a statement next week about what the Government will be doing to put pressure on the United States Government to prevent the abandonment of the SALT II agreement?
Why are the Government apparently coy about making a formal announcement of the Prime Minister's appointment of Mr. Richard Branson as litter supremo? Will the Leader of the House ensure that the Secretary of State for the Environment makes an early statement about what is clearly a major Government initiative on garbage?

Mr. Biffen: To respond to the points that the Leader of the Opposition has just raised in the order in which they were put, I must confess that the Education Bill has had considerable treatment in the other place. None the less, I shall take account of the request for the Special Standing Committee procedure which perhaps can be examined through the usual channels.
As for the tin industry, of course I join with the right hon. Gentleman in acknowledging the seriousness of the matter, particularly in the context of Cornwall. The Government have now been able to comment upon the observations of the Select Committee and I agree that it would be appropriate to have a debate in the reasonably near future. Again, we can consider that through the usual channels.
I very much hope that in my next business statement I shall be able to announce a foreign affairs debate, although perhaps the duration might be considered. Meanwhile, I note that the right hon. Gentleman would like a statement from my right hon. and learned Friend the Foreign Secretary on the possibility of sanctions against South Africa. I shall certainly refer that point to my right hon. and learned Friend, as well as the interest that the right hon. Gentleman has shown in the SALT II agreement. I am sure that the right hon. Gentleman will acknowledge that fairly soon we should have a debate upon the defence White Paper when the matter will be relevant.
I note the right hon. Gentleman's interest in the question of Mr. Branson's appointment. I shall see that his remarks are faithfully conveyed to my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for the Environment.

Mr. Terence Higgins: Is it not important that the House should have an early opportunity to debate public expenditure priorities and to express a view on matters such as overseas aid, the rate support grant, the Health Service and so on in advance of decisions being taken rather than waiting until next March when it will be able to comment only on what has effectively become a fait accompli?

Mr. Biffen: My right hon. Friend makes a pertinent point. Certainly it is a highly topical issue and one that is central to the conduct of economic policy. It is perhaps something that we could look at through the usual channels.

Mr. Sydney Bidwell: When are we likely to debate the EEC orders affecting drivers' hours? I understand that the Opposition will pray against them. They are out today. Can the right hon. Gentleman say when they are likely to come before the House?

Mr. Biffen: No, I cannot, but I shall look into the matter and be in touch with the hon. Gentleman.

Mr. Jim Spicer: May I ask the advice of my right hon. Friend? There has always been in my experience an established code of conduct for hon. Members when they are abroad. Would this be an appropriate moment for my right hon. Friend to draw the attention of all hon. Members to that code of conduct and to ask that they comply with it? We cannot do it retrospectively, but perhaps it can apply to the recess.

Mr. Biffen: I think that I am being invited to tread in somewhat dangerous territory. These are matters essentially for self-regulation. The standards of the past would be a good guide for future conduct.

Mr. James Wallace: I note that the Leader of the House has said that there is likely to be a foreign affairs debate in the near future. Allowing for the fact that that would probably be a wide-ranging debate, does he not think that there is a need for a specific debate on East-West relations, particularly in the light of the visit to the Soviet Union recently by a parliamentary delegation and of the possible breakdown of the SALT II agreement? Further, is there a possibility of a debate on the recent decision of NATO Ministers on the manufacture and deployment of chemical weapons?

Mr. Biffen: No; I have to disappoint the hon. Gentleman. Our foreign affairs debates are normally drawn in such a way as to enable a wide-ranging debate because inevitably various topics are legitimately at issue on those occasions. As the hon. Gentleman will have heard, I have suggested that the forthcoming debate upon the defence White Paper will be an occasion when the SALT II issue can be further considered.

Sir Kenneth Lewis: As the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland has suggested that the Northern Ireland Assembly might be done away with in the near future, will my right hon. Friend arrange a debate prior to that in the hope that it will encourage some Northern Ireland Members to come to the House, contribute to the debate and listen to what is said?

Mr. Biffen: In no way would it be proper for me to interpret what the Chair would judge to be in order. However, the second item of business for next Tuesday—the Appropriation (No. 2) (Northern Ireland) Order—might provide an opportunity for my hon. Friend to make a speech.

Mr. George Foulkes: Does the right hon. Gentleman agree that it is a great tribute to my hon. Friend the Member for Linlithgow (Mr. Dalyell) that Government Members will tonight filibuster on the Channel Tunnel Bill to block his debate tomorrow? Does not that prove conclusively that the Prime Minister has a great deal to hide on the issues that my hon. Friend wishes to raise?

Mr. Biffen: I have every confidence and every reason to believe that this evening's debate will be conducted fully within order.

Mr. Derek Conway: Will the House have the opportunity next week to consider early-day motion 899 in the name of the hon. Member for Yeovil (Mr. Ashdown)?
[That this House recognises the severe hardship and financial distress, which can amount to personal bankruptcy, suffered by individual, frequently small farmers in the South West upon whose land the Peace Convoy has chosen to encamp; believes that individual rights and livelihoods are being threatened, the public peace jeopardised and the police placed in an impossible position by the inadequacy of the present law of trespass, which can take seven days or more and cost individuals £3,000 in legal fees to enforce; recognises that the Department of the Environment has consistently fudged its responsibilities and refused to help county councils to define theirs towards the peace convoys, leaving individual land owners to cope with problems they will not shoulder; and calls on the Government to seek to amend the prespass law immediately to ensure that it can be enacted quickly and effectively in a way which protects property and preserves the peace; and asks the Department of the Environment to undertake an urgent study into the Peace Convoy phenomenon with a view to providing adequate facilities which allows those on the Convoy to pursue their life style in a way which does not impinge on the rights of others and assists county councils and the police to cope with this problem.]
If we have the opportunity to discuss the motion, which calls for the establishment of official hippy sites, does my right hon. Friend anticipate that something unique in this House will happen—that the Liberal party will come off the fence and tell us in which constituencies it expects to have such sites established and whether any of them will be in the county of Shropshire?

Mr. Biffen: I fear that such is the pressure of constructive Government business that there is no time available for what I am sure would be a highly instructive debate on the topic referred to by my hon. Friend. However, that does not prevent the hon. Member for Yeovil (Mr. Ashdown) from finding his own way of enlightening us all—whether we live in rural Shropshire or the west country—about which treasured areas may be chosen for the sites.

Mr. Tam Dalyell: Does the Leader of the House recollect that some weeks ago, with his normal courtesy, he said that he would try to find time for a debate on the report of the Select Committee on Foreign Affairs on the events of 1 and 2 May? Does he anticipate being able to fulfil that?

Mr. Biffen: I am not in a position to make any further statements this afternoon, but I shall further consider the hon. Gentleman's point.

Mr. John Heddle (Mid-Staffordshire): Can my right hon. Friend find time, at the earliest opportunity, to debate job prospects in Staffordshire, and especially those of employees in my constituency who work in the old-established and British firm of Wedgwood, which plays such a part in the affairs of this House and the other place?
Will my right hon. Friend direct his attention to early-day motion 901 standing in my name and those of other hon. Members?
[That this House views with great concern the hostile takeover bid for Wedgwood by the London International Group plc; fears that this could have serious implications for Wedgwood' s 8,000 employees, predominantly in North Staffordshire, and many thousands more whose livelihood


depends on the company in a part of the country already suffering badly from high unemployment; is concerned that Wedgwood' s worldwide reputation as the leading United Kingdom manufacturer of ceramic products synonymous with quality will be at risk if it is absorbed into a conglomerate whose management and marketing expertise has been based on contraceptives, rubber gloves, toiletries, photographic processing and medicine before their acquisition of Wedgwood Spode only eighteen months ago; believes that the combination of Wedgwood and Worcester Spode would produce a share of the total market which should be examined; and strongly urges the Secretary of State to refer the bid to the Monopolies and Mergers Commission.]
Will he find time to debate whether the bid that has been made for that old-established British company, which has an international order book and an international reputation, should be referred to the Monopolies and Mergers Commission?

Mr. Biffen: May I dare to offer a few words of friendly advice to my hon. Friend? I would argue that Wedgwood is sufficiently a national institution that its fortunes in employment and other economic activities fall well within the terms of the motion set down for Friday.

Mr. Michael J. Martin: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that I was fortunate enough to secure the Adjournment debate last night on the rundown or closure of British Rail Engineering Limited workshops in Springburn? Is he further aware of the reply by the Minister of State, Department of Transport, about the exclusion of members of the press from those works—although they were allowed into other works facing the same difficulties? The Minister said that they were denied access on Thursday 29 May because 40 journalists wanted a tour of the factory.
I was at the works that day with the secretary and deputy chairman of the Scottish TUC. I can assure the right hon. Gentleman that only four journalists were seeking access to the premises. Is it not a fact, therefore, that those in the nationalised industries are telling lies to Ministers and misleading the House? Can steps be taken to ensure that those responsible for our nationalised industries keep Ministers properly informed?

Mr. Biffen: I have a feeling that this is something like an extension of the Adjournment debate. I can best help the hon. Gentleman by referring his remarks to my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Transport.

Mr. Patrick Cormack: Is my right hon. Friend aware that people throughout Staffordshire are outraged at the thought that the tradition of Wedgwood should be rudely interrupted by the makers of contraceptive sheaths? Will he please ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry to make a statement on Government policy on the reference to the Monopolies and Mergers Commission next week in the debate to which he referred?

Mr. Biffen: I understand that the matter is with the Office of Fair Trading. I will try to help my hon. Friend by saying that a motion on enterprise and deregulation might cover the activities of Wedgwood and its present

position. Meanwhile, I will certainly refer my hon. Friend's remarks to my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry.

Mr. Peter Shore: In view of the organised conspiracy to wipe out tomorrow's debate in which the Prime Minister's conduct on many matters would be subject to the full scrutiny of the House, does not the right hon. Gentleman think that he has an obligation to come to the House today with a revised statement on the business for the rest of the week?

Mr. Biffen: No, I do not. We will simply have to see how matters proceed this evening.

Mr. Nigel Forman: Following the question of my right hon. Friend the Member for Worthing (Mr. Higgins), is my right hon. Friend the Leader of the House aware that many Conservative Members would appreciate a full-scale debate, broadly drawn, on the subject of public expenditure so that we could examine the priorities within public spending and the relationship between inputs and outputs and the balance between public expenditure and tax cuts? Will he give that matter serious consideration?

Mr. Biffen: I understand my hon. Friend's point and I accept that it is legitimate. However, at this time of the year we must assess what time is available for general debates.

Mr. Jeremy Corbyn: Is the Leader of the House aware that many hon. Members wish to take part in the debate on foreign affairs which he hinted at a few moments ago? In those circumstances, does he agree that it would be appropriate for it to be a two-day debate so that all recent world events could be fully debated?

Mr. Biffen: The Leader of the Opposition has already put that point to me. It would probably be a courtesy if I were to confine my remarks to what I have already said to him.

Mr. Derek Spencer: Is my right hon. Friend aware of the anxiety expressed recently by the judiciary and others about the impact of parole on short sentences? It means that, when a defendant is sentenced to between 10 and 18 months, he serves only a period of six months irrespective of the sentence involved. May we have an early statement from my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for the Home Department to allay suspicion that parole is not working adequately to protect the public and is undermining the independence of the judiciary?

Mr. Biffen: I will certainly refer that point to my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary.

Mr. Michael Foot: As the Leader of the House apparently washes his hands of the charge that there is any possibility that he or the Government Front Bench is implicated in the attempt to destroy tomorrow's private Members' business, will he give us an absolute undertaking that, if it appears tonight that tomorrow's business may be destroyed, he will introduce a simple motion reinstating that business, as it is open to him to do? A day could be chosen next week for that business. If the right hon. Gentleman is not prepared to give that undertaking, are we not entitled to draw the deduction that he is party to the conspiracy?

Mr. Biffen: I can only tell the right hon. Gentleman that his affectation of innocence is most charming in these circumstances. It is extraordinary to suggest that the Government should find time for a motion drawn in such offensive terms against my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister.

Mr. Richard Holt: Is my right hon. Friend aware that, despite having two Cabinet Ministers with responsibility for employment, the Government recently made changes in the employment transfer scheme which are detrimental to the people in the north of England as opposed to those in the south? That is yet another of the matters which bring about the divide. Will he find time to allow someone in the Government to bring the matter to the House rather than issuing the news through a press release as that is not the way to run the country?

Mr. Biffen: I take careful account of what my hon. Friend says and I shall certainly refer his remarks to my right hon. and learned Friend the Paymaster General.

Mr. D. N. Campbell-Savours: Has the Leader of the House had time to read the comprehensive report of the Public Accounts Committee on defence matters which deals with Aish and Company Ltd. of Poole and Mr. Jim Smith, the man who laid his job on the line to whistle-blow and report excess profits by that company to the Ministry of Defence? Will he ensure that a Minister comes to the Dispatch Box to deal with the question of compensation which the Public Accounts Committee has indentified as important in so far as it believes that Mr. Smith should be compensated for the stand which he took?

Mr. Biffen: I have not undertaken the reading referred to by the hon. Gentleman, but I have probably done even better; I have read the article in The Guardian today containing a commentary on it and a photograph of himself. As he will appreciate, the matter will now go for consideration by the Government and our next best bet is to await the Government's response to the report of the Public Accounts Committee.

Mr. John Browne: Will my right hon. Friend accept that one of the key elements in the maintenance of law and order is that the public should not be tempted to take the law into their own hands? Does he agree that the present civil law on trespass is proving woefully inadequate against modern abuse, particularly in respect of the removal of offenders from property and the inability of people who have been wronged and lost their livelihoods to obtain compensation? Surely the issue must be the subject of an urgent debate.

Mr. Biffen: My hon. Friend makes a point which faithfully echoes the deep anxiety and sense of resentment which the hippy train has aroused in the rural parts of our country, but I remind him that my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister commented in particular upon that point earlier this afternoon and there is nothing that I want to add to her statement.

Mr. Greville Janner: In view of the Government's refusal to permit access to a series of documents in the Public Record Office which have been there for some 40 years and which refer to the death of British prisoners and, presumably, to Kurt Waldheim's connection therewith, may we have a debate on the practices and procedures by which this or any other Government are entitled to withhold documents from the

public? I and the House understand why documents of current military, intelligence or security interest have to be kept away from the public, but documents that are 40 years old cannot have that interest. In those circumstances who was responsible for taking that decision and to whom is he or she accountable for it?

Mr. Biffen: As the hon. and learned Gentleman knows, we have been in correspondence on this matter and I do not accept the general tenor of his comments. There is no prospect of a debate in Government time on this matter, but I suggest that he might like to consider this as being a legitimate matter for an Adjournment debate. Meanwhile, I shall refer his remarks to my right hon. and learned Friend the Foreign Secretary.

Mr. Gerald Howarth: May I seek the advice of my right hon. Friend? Is he aware of the rumour that at 9.30 tomorrow morning, in a Committee Room, a Member of the House will deliver a turgid 50-page indictment against the most honourable Prime Minister that we have had, certainly since Winston Churchill? Will that turgid rubbish enjoy the same privilege as any statement made on the Floor of the House?

Mr. Biffen: I am not aware of any such arrangements and I have not been consulted about them, but I can say to my hon. Friend that the question of what determines privilege is more appropriate for Mr. Speaker than for myself.

Mr. Dennis Skinner: Will the Leader of the House make arrangements with the Home Secretary to consider the workings of the Representation of the People Act 1981 as it applies to recent by-elections, particularly that in West Derbyshire? For instance, is he aware that during the course of that election the leader of the Liberal party was flying about in a helicopter which cost a considerable amount of money and would almost certainly have violated the total amount that could have been spent in a by-election? Such a practice in a general election is regarded as sound because party leaders have to travel all over the country and cannot attribute those expenses to one constituency party, but in a by-election the consideration must be entirely different. Although suggestions have been made that use of the helicopter was free, does not the Leader of the House consider that its use could not be permitted under the Representation of the People Act, given the transport costs that it allows?

Mr. Biffen: I am not sure that I have any competence to answer that question. Therefore, I would rather say that I have noted what has been said and I shall refer it to my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary.

Mr. Tim Yeo: In the light of the understandable and reasonable requests made by right hon. and hon. Friends for a debate in which public expenditure priorities can be examined, will my right hon. Friend undertake that if such a debate takes place the motion will be couched in terms broad enough to examine taxation policy? That will allow a demonstration of the clear statistical fact that the 18 million workers on average or below average earnings, with whom the Prime Minister is properly concerned, would benefit substantially more by an increase in tax thresholds than by a cut in the basic rate of income tax.

Mr. Biffen: I note what my hon. Friend says. Any chance of the debate requested by my right hon. Friend the


member for Worthing (Mr. Higgins) still remains a twinkle in the eye. However, if the debate took place, I should have thought that my hon. Friend's point would be argued, irrespective of the terms of the motion.

Mr. Frank Cook: Notwithstanding the Leader of the House's inability to respond positively to the question of my hon. Friend the Member for Bolsover (Mr. Skinner), I am sure that he would agree that the management of the business of the House is a task which requires great experience, even greater skill and guile, some might almost say cunning, and that other hon. Members have seen it practised in this Chamber with an unfailing degree of humour of late. Will the Leader of the House tell us who he has in mind to shoulder such an onerous burden when, in the run-up to a general election, he is required by his party to replace the Prime Minister?

Mr. Biffen: I have not the cunning, guile or humour to answer that question.

Mr. Tony Fayell: Is my right hon. Friend able to say whether the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland will be making a statement to the House on the future of the Northern Ireland Assembly and the attitude of the Northern Ireland political parties towards the Assembly, especially the Social Democratic and Labour party? Is he aware that many people who support the Anglo-Irish agreement are totally bewildered, indeed, angry, as to why members of the SDLP have not yet taken their seats in the Assembly?

Mr. Biffen: I understand my hon. Friend's point. I shall refer it to my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland so that if he does have any plans on the topic of the Assembly he will know of the interest that they should be reported to the House.

Mr. Peter Bruinvels: Although the postal workers in the Yorkshire area may have settled their differences with the Post Office, does my right hon. Friend think that it is time that we had a debate on the operation of an unfair monopoly by the Post Office in order to allow in private enterprise to speed up the postal service and deliveries and give businesses some true encouragement?
Secondly, does my right hon. Friend think that it is time we looked again at the Church of England, especially the House of Bishops' pronouncement on "The Nature of Christian Belief', in which some doubtful ideas on doctrine and on the virgin birth are put forward?

Mr. Biffen: I would not in any sense wish to anticipate the ruling of the Chair, but why not try the Patronage (Benefices) Measure, which I do not think will be the most over-subscribed item of business next week? The question of deregulation of the Post Office is a topical matter of great general concern. My hon. Friend might like to consider whether that could be part of a speech he might wish to make during the debate on deregulation next Friday.

Mr. Eric Forth (Mid-Worcestershire): Does my right hon. Friend agree that the Channel tunnel is a matter of widespread and understandable concern to many hon. Members? Therefore, will he accept that any debate on matters relating to the Channel tunnel must necessarily be detailed and lengthy? Therefore, does he agree that, if Opposition Members are unhappy about the conduct of

tonight's business and any effect it may have on tomorrow's business, they should be here in strength throughout the night in order to move closure motions and express their disgust by their physical presence as well as verbally this afternoon?

Mr. Biffen: I am sure that hon. Friend is right to argue that the Channel Tunnel Bill is major legislation, and the right hon. Member for Bethnal Green and Stepney (Mr. Shore) made that point most graphically on Tuesday when we were having a late, as usual, debate on that topic. I do not think that I can comment beyond that. The conduct of the debate and the rules of order are matters for the Chair.

Mr. Jerry Hayes: Does my right hon. Friend agree that the time is ripe for a full-blooded debate on Britain's independent nuclear deterrent so that the Liberal party and the SDP can sit down quietly and ponder the debate? In the end, they may have one or two ideas for the embarrassing policy that they are now presenting.

Mr. Biffen: I agree that there is a desire in the country that there should be a debate in the House so that all those who are seeking a mandate at the next general election can make clear where they stand on membership of the North Atlantic Treaty Organisation and the nuclear dimension of that organisation and what is meant by it. My only regret is that, compelling though the reasons for such a debate are, I cannot find Government time for it soon. I suggest that my hon. Friend reserves his fire for the debate that we shall be having on the defence White Paper.

Mr. Kinnock: I put it to the right hon. Gentleman, following the question from the hon. Member for Mid-Worcestershire (Mr. Forth), that it is not the conduct of tonight's debate that concerns us but the possible misconduct against a private Member in tomorrow's business. The Leader of the House said earlier that he was confident that tonight's business would be within order. I share his confidence. but does he have the same view about tomorrow's business?

Mr. Biffen: We shall have to wait and see how we go.

Mr. David Winnick: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. In the exchanges on business a point has emerged on which I hope that you can give us some help and protection. It concerns tomorrow's business and the motion for debate to be introduced by my hon. Friend the Member for Linlithgow (Mr. Dalyell). The Leader of the House said that he found the motion offensive. That is his opinion. However, it would be offensive to the House as a whole, and certainly to the Labour party, if my hon. Friend, who won a place in the ballot, had no opportunity to move his motion because of an organised plot by the Conservative party to deny him his right.
It is often said—it is almost a cliché—that you, Mr. Speaker, are the defender of the rights of Back Benchers. The chances of a Back Bencher winning a ballot for a motion are not high. My hon. Friend has been very fortunate. Should his opportunity be destroyed because the terms of his motion are disapproved of — obviously strongly — by the Government, is there any way in which the interests of my hon. Friend can be protected, because he has as much right to move his motion, having won the ballot, as has any other Member? Why should his right be taken away because the Leader of the House, the Prime Minister and the rest of the Cabinet do not want the motion?

Sir Kenneth Lewis: Further to that point of order, Mr. Speaker. According to the press, the hon. Member for Linlithgow (Mr. Dalyell), instead of having a debate in the House, is considering having a press conference. Would it not help the House, you and everyone else if the hon. Member carried on with his press conference and withdrew the motion, and then we could all get on without any problem?

Mr. Gerald Howarth: Further to that point of order, Mr. Speaker——

Mr. Speaker: Order. Is this a genuine point of order?

Mr. Howarth: It is a genuine point of order Mr. Speaker, otherwise I would not raise it. Is it not an abuse of the House that a private Member's motion is used effectively as a confidence motion against the Prime Minister? More importantly, you will have heard during business questions that I raised with my right hon. Friend the Leader of the House the question whether a speech delivered in a Committee, purporting to make accusations against an individual, enjoys the same privilege as it enjoys on the Floor of the House. The hon. Member for Walsall, North (Mr. Winnick I knows more about such intimidation than anybody else.

Mr. Foot: Further to that point of order, Mr. Speaker. would it not be perfectly possible for provision to be made so that the rights of my hon. Friend the Member for Linlithgow (Mr. Dalyell), who won a place in the ballot, can be protected? Members who win in the ballot have the right to choose the subject that they bring before the House. The rest of the House has an interest in protecting that right.
Is it not the case that, if it appeared that the House was being delayed by discussions continuing at considerable length tonight and tomorrow morning, it would be open to the Leader of the House to take an action that would protect both that business and the rights of the hon. Member who had won the ballot? When it appeared that the debate would continue and destroy Friday's business, could not the right hon. Gentleman move a motion that the House should have leave to sit again to debate this important matter, which the House wishes to discuss in

considerable detail? Therefore, if the Leader of the House does not take such action, it will be by his decision that the rights of a private Member are destroyed.

Mr. Biffen: Further to that point of order, Mr. Speaker. Will you also confirm that it is equally open either to the right hon. Gentleman or to any other Member to move a motion for leave to sit again?

Mr. Speaker: Order. It is the absolute right of any Member who wins a place in the ballot to put down a subject for debate, provided that it is in order, as this motion was, and for him to move it. Whether the debate takes place is in the hands of the House, and hon. Members will have noticed that at 10 o'clock there is the Business of the House motion. If that is not passed, the proceedings will not go on until any hour. It is entirely a matter for the House and not for me.

Mr. Winnick: In the exchanges that have occurred since I raised my point of order, I understood—if I am wrong I shall not pursue the matter—that the hon. Member for Cannock and Burntwood (Mr. Howarth) said that I knew more about intimidation than anybod) else. If he made such a remark, it should be withdrawn.

Mr. Speaker: I did not hear that.

Mr. Gerald Howarth: I clearly said that. The hon. Member for Walsall, North, is well known in the House for his verbal intimidation of hon. Members.

Mr. Speaker: Order. In the interests of good order, will the hon. Gentleman please withdraw the allegation?

Mr. Howarth: As I recognise that you are a gentleman of honour and expect high standards in the House, Mr. Speaker, I shall withdraw the allegation. However, will you answer my earlier question about whether remarks made in a Committee Room enjoy the privilege of remarks made in the Chamber?

Mr. Speaker: I make it clear that remarks made at a private meeting, and not in the Chamber, are not protected by privilege. The only remarks that are protected are those made outside the Chamber in Committees of the House as part of the proceedings of Parliament.

STATUTORY INSTRUMENTS, &c.

Mr. Speaker: By leave of the House, I shall put together the Questions on the motions relating to statutory instruments.

Ordered,
That the draft Merchant Shipping (Cargo Ship Construction and Survey) Regulations 1984 (Amendment) Regulations 1986 be referred to a Standing Committee on Statutory Instruments, &amp;c.
That the draft Merchant Shipping (Passenger Ship Construction) (New and Existing Ships) (Amendment) Regulations 1986 be referred to a Standing Committee on Statutory Instruments, &amp;c.
That the draft Merchant Shipping (Fire Protection and Fire Appliances) (Amendment) Regulations 1986 be referred to a Standing Committee on Statutory Instruments, &amp;c.
That the draft Merchant Shipping (Masters and Training) Regulations 1986 be referred to a Standing Committee on Statutory Instruments, &amp;c.
That the draft Merchant Shipping (Life-Saving Appliances) Regulations 1986 be referred to a Standing Committee on Statutory Instruments, &amp;c.
That the draft Merchant Shipping (Life-Saving Appliances Regulations) 1980 (Amendment) Regulations 1986 be referred to a Standing Committee on Statutory Instruments, &amp;c.
 That the draft Merchant Shipping (Radio Installations) (Amendment) Regulations 1986 be referred to a Standing Committee on Statutory Instruments, &amp;c.
That the draft Merchant Shipping (Chemical Tankers) Regulations 1986 be referred to a Standing Committee on Statutory Instruments, &amp;c.
That the draft Merchant Shipping (Gas Carriers) Regulations 1986 be referred to a Standing Committee on Statutory Instruments, &amp;c.
That the draft Merchant Shipping (Dangerous Goods) (Amendment) Regulations 1986 be referred to a Standing Committee on Statutory Instruments, &amp;c.
That the draft Horticultural Development Council Order 1986 be referred to a Standing Committee on Statutory Instruments, &amp;c.
That the Motor Vehicles (Variation of Speed Limits) Regulations 1986 be referred to a Standing Committee on Statutory Instruments, &amp;c.—[Mr. Malone.]

Orders of the Day — Channel Tunnel Bill

Order for Second Reading read.

The Secretary of State for Transport (Mr. John Moore): I beg to move, That the Bill be now read a Second time.
I have it in Command from the Queen to acquaint the House that Her Majesty, having been informed of the purport of the Bill, has consented to place Her prerogative and interest, so far as they are affected by the Bill, at the disposal of Parliament for the purposes of the Bill.

Mr. Speaker: I have selected the amendment in the name of the Leader of the Opposition.

Mr. Moore: It is with some trepidation, and not a little sense of occasion, that I come before the House today to move the Second Reading of the 1986 Channel Tunnel Bill. Hon. Members will know well the long history of Channel tunnel projects going back almost two centuries, and I will not dwell on them.
The process leading to the Bill that is before the House began over 18 months ago with a meeting in November 1984 between my predecessor, now the Secretary of State for the Environment, and his French counterpart, at the end of which they announced their agreement in principle to facilitate the construction of a fixed link by private promoters. An official working party was established to draw up guidelines, and on 2 April 1985 my right hon. Friend announced to the House the publication of the "Invitation to Promoters", calling for proposals to be submitted by the end of October and to be rigorously assessed by the two Governments. During the assessment period, the House debated the merits of the schemes on 9 December and we had the benefit of a report, produced speedily and with great efficiency, by the Transport Select Committee.
The successful project—the twin rail tunnel of CTG-FM, now known as Eurotunnel—was announced at a meeting of Heads of Government on 20 January this year, and my right hon. Friend made an immediate statement to the House, which Members discussed at some length.
On 4 February the Government issued a White Paper giving the reasons for their decision and setting out the next steps. This was the subject of a full-scale debate by the House on 10 February, at the end of which the White Paper was approved on a Division. Whilst that decision was far from unopposed, there was a wide measure of acceptance in all parts of the House that the Government had made the right basic decision. The hon. Member for Aberdeen, North (Mr. Hughes), the official Opposition transport spokesman, said:
the CTG-FM scheme is the best of the schemes that the Government examined. In our view, it suits our transport needs and provides opportunities for British Rail." — [Official Report, 10 February 1986; Vol. 91, c. 692.]
I welcome such a degree of consensus on such an important issue.
Accordingly, on 12 February the Channel fixed link treaty was signed in Canterbury and on 14 March the concession agreement was concluded. Neither of these instruments—this is important—can take effect until the


two Governments have the necessary powers to implement them. The purpose of the Channel Tunnel Bill is to give the British Government the powers they need. The purpose of today's debate is to establish the principle that there should be a Channel tunnel. Once the Bill had passed into law, the treaty can be ratified and the concession can come into effect.
I thought it important, at the start of this debate, to outline briefly the events of the past year and a half that have led to today's Second Reading. I propose now to look at the implications of the Government's proposals from three points of view.
I shall start by considering the national impact of the project—because its impact is truly national. Secondly, I shall consider the particular issues raised by the project in Kent, and the developmental and environmental implications in particular. Thirdly, I shall describe the parliamentary process and the consultation machinery set up by my hon. Friend the Minister of State, Department of Transport, in Kent, which the Government view as an essential complement to the hybrid Bill procedure in this case. I shall then speak about the content of the Bill, specifically.
I begin, therefore, with the national impact of these proposals, which I believe to be extensive, affecting not merely travellers, holidaymakers and business men, but manufacturers and traders throughout the country, our economy as a whole and, indeed, our attitudes as a nation.
Britain is a trading nation. One third of our gross domestic product is traded internationally—a very high proportion for a nation of our size. Last year our exports came to £78 billion, and they are an essential part of our livelihood. As has been said in previous debates, 60 per cent. of our exports go to western Europe—£46 billion worth.
Such a relationship to the world is two-edged. In the past it has brought us great wealth. But it places a premium upon competitiveness, initiative, and, most importantly, on the ability to adapt to change. It is only by adapting to change—in technical development, in new patterns of consumption, in new demands from consumers, in new industries—that a trading nation can prosper. We, much more than other countries which are self-sufficient, cannot avoid the challenge of change, the need to be out in front in new development, new methods, new products and new ways of delivering them to our customers.
Yet what has been the truth in Britain over the past half century? Has it not been that, far from welcoming and thriving on change, we have clung to what we have? While whole industries should have been finding new things to make and new ways to make them, thus expanding into new markets, instead they continued to do the old things in the old ways. They lost ground to those abroad with greater initiative. But the good news is that in recent years we have seen a remarkable change in attitudes and a new recognition of what the modern world requires, which has resulted in dramatic improvements in efficiency and productivity.
These important advances have laid the foundation for long-term improvement of the British economy. The Channel tunnel, coming now, when this crucial foundation has been laid, will provide an opportunity for our industry to expand and grow into one of the richest markets in the world. The Channel tunnel will give British business the opportunity to gain ever larger slices of this enormous

market. That means more jobs for individuals, more profits for business, and more wealth and resources for the country as a whole.
Everyone can see the immediate, short-term boost in jobs and wealth. Some £700 million worth of equipment and materials will be needed by Eurotunnel to build the link, and perhaps another £200 million by British Rail. That means pre-cast tunnel linings, reinforcing and structural steel, cables, signalling equipment, high-speed trains, shuttle trains and locomotives. I need hardly remind hon. Members where the country's capacity for producing these lies.
Including direct employment in the south-east—in Kent—on construction work, we are talking, in all of some 8,000 to 10,000 jobs over a seven-year period. But the benefits will be vastly greater and more long-term than that. The hon. Member for Wrexham (Dr. Marek)—I have read the debates carefully — in the February Channel tunnel debate, said:
The business man in Manchester will be able to load his freight on to wagons in Manchester and they can be offloaded at Duisburg, for example, without any difficulties stemming from crossing the Channel."—[Official Report, 10 February 1986; Vol. 91, c. 720.]
All over Britain, business and industry will suddenly find they can get their goods to the huge Euromarket faster, cheaper and more efficiently through the Channel tunnel. Passengers as well as freight will benefit. Passenger trains will cover the distance from London to Paris or Brussels in three to three and a quarter hours. Coaches, cars and lorries will reach the continent at least an hour faster and more reliably than now. All this will be accomplished by a combination of private, largely international, capital and profitable investment by BR. Any other nation, I am bound to say, would seize this opportunity with open arms.
The economic rewards of the Channel tunnel far outweigh the costs, but there are some, and it is right they should be mentioned in this debate.

Mr. Robert Maclennan: Before the Minister turns to the costs, will he say whether the Government have been able to make projections of the additional traffic volume that will be generated by accepting the generality of what he has said? It would he of interest and help if he could be more particular.

Mr. Moore: It will be for the promoters to make their projections. The hon. Gentleman has made a valid point, however, and I shall see whether additional information, especially on British Rail's expectations as well as those of the promoters, is made available to him.

Sir John Farr: Will my right hon. Friend bear in mind that the advantages for our exports to the continent will be matched by the advantages that will accrue to exporters of goods to Britain? Perhaps he will deal with the balance and take up the argument that our domestic industry could be adversely affected by the more rapid access that a tunnel would bring.

Mr. Moore: I recognise my hon. Friend's point, but it is rather depressing, when we seek to create new opportunities for our industries and manufacturers, that it seems automatically to be assumed that we shall be less effective, less efficient and less capable of taking advantage of the opportunities than our competitors.
The economic rewards of the Channel tunnel outweigh the costs, and I have said that it is right that we should


mention some of the costs in the debate. The Government's White Paper made it clear that, taking into account employment in the ferry industry at Dover and Folkestone, there would be a dip in employment, which would not be insignificant in local terms—about 1,500 jobs below present levels. In fairness to my hon. Friend the Member for Thanet, South (Mr. Aitken), who has made this point on several occasions in the House, I accept that there will be pressure also on port-related jobs elsewhere in the county. Thereafter, we believe the underlying upward trend in cross-Channel employment will resume, and there will be exciting opportunities for general development if local authorities grasp them.
It is therefore right that I should turn now to the second section of my speech—the local impact of the tunnel on the local economy, and especially on the local environment.

Sir Julian Ridsdale: Before my right hon. Friend leaves the national interest, will he say something about the effect of the Channel tunnel on the east coast ports?

Mr. Moore: The degree to which the Channel tunnel will have an impact on ferry traffic is not regarded as being adverse to the port which is represented by my hon. Friend, who advanced the port opportunities of his constituency admirably, if I may say so, the other evening.

Mr. Robert Adley: My right hon. Friend will know that I do not have the fear of public expenditure from which some of my colleagues seem to suffer. If evidence is produced that additional public expenditure could maximise the national benefits of the project, will my right hon. Friend make it clear that he will not automatically reject them because, for short-term interests, British Rail or others may not be able to justify the expenditure on rather narrow immediate financial criteria?

Mr. Moore: That is a somewhat elliptical question. My right hon. Friend the former Secretary of State for Transport made clear the degree to which the needs of British Rail, having regard to the profitable investment that it would wish to put into the project, are additional to the already expected external financing limit and other future investment prospects of BR. I do not think that this is an area where we expect to worry about the nature of the way in which British Rail's investment is constrained.

Mr. Robert Hughes: That is an eliptical answer.

Mr. Moore: It is important to take up the critical role of the tunnel on the local economy, and especially on the local environment. Nowhere has the Channel tunnel project aroused stronger passions than in Kent.
I pay especial tribute to my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Folkestone and Hythe (Mr. Howard), the Under-Secretary of State for Trade and Industry, who is in his place on the Treasury Front Bench for the debate. My hon. and learned Friend is unable, of course, to speak in our debates on the Channel tunnel, but, as always, when this matter is discussed, he is with us. He has assiduously represented the interests of his constituents. In only two short weeks in my present job he has left me in no doubt that he will be pressing very hard for some of the features

in the scheme that will have a particular impact on his constituents to be justified rigorously and in detail or to be modified.
Out of geographical necessity, the tunnel must begin in Kent. That is where the environmental effects of the link are concentrated, but it is also where there will be special opportunities to benefit from this unique enterprise.

Mr. Stuart Holland: I trust that during his speech the Minister will find time to address himself to the environmental impact not only on Kent but on Waterloo. After all, this Channel traffic does have to terminus at some point according to the Government. We hope, however, that the traffic will be dispersed.

Mr. Moore: I have read with care the hon. Gentleman's speeches in these debates. I hope that he will take the opportunity, as my hon. Friend the Minister of State will suggest, of bringing a delegation, if he wishes, to meet my hon. Friend, in addition to the meetings that he has had with British Rail. I think that would be helpful. I think also that when he considers this great and unique national project, he will recognise the changes that will occur and the job opportunities that will become available. I am advised that there might well be about 400 additional jobs at Waterloo in consequence of this major development. That is one of the factors with which the hon. Gentleman, with his constituency interests, will wish to concern himself.
I have already referred to the direct employment consequences anticipated for the link in Kent and set out in the White Paper, but it would be wrong to see a project with potentially far-reaching effects in these terms alone. While the whole country stands to benefit from an efficient transport link for its people and its products, there will be specific opportunities for economic growth in Kent, but where that happens and how many jobs it could create are matters for the planning authorities.
Some would see such a development as an environmental threat. I do not, because I have faith in the councils to discharge their responsibilities with sensitivity. The need to control secondary development is their challenge. The beauty and the treasures of the county must be preserved. If not, it will become less attractive to those who might otherwise choose to live there and contribute to its well-being. But I cannot believe that sufficient land cannot be made available where it is appropriate for economic development to take place. I am confident that the councils will be sensitive while ensuring that the county reaps the rewards of the opportunities which the tunnel will create for Kent.
Great stress has been laid in debates both inside and outside the House on possible environmental damage that the tunnel might cause. Surprisingly little has been said of the potential for one dramatic environmental improvement. Speaking in the Channel tunnel debate last December, my hon. Friend the Member for Ashford (Mr. Speed) said:
in the first eight months of this year 520,000 heavy lorries went through Dover. Those of us who live in Kent know only too well that that number is increasing all the time.
He went on to say that, given the British Rail estimates of potential freight rail traffic through the tunnel, it would
be equivalent to transferring from road to rail some 365,000 lorries a year. That is a tremendous prize, with a substantial environmental gain to be won." — [Official Report, 9 December 1986; Vol. 88. c. 670.]


Obviously that was a calculation with a lot of assumptions. But anything even approaching that would be a very substantial environmental gain, and I would think that the many hon. Members who have already approached me in the two weeks since I took my present job on the subject of heavy lorries would also agree. As for the direct local effect of the construction works, the limited environmental impact of the Eurotunnel scheme was a major factor in its selection.
The Government from the outset recognised the need to safeguard the environment by mitigating the adverse consequences of the tunnel proposals. The environmental impact assessment, undertaken by the promoters as part of their submission to the Government, and the appraisal commissioned by the Government as part of their assessment process established the areas of concern on which further work would be required.
Kent county council and the districts are now doing a commendably thorough job in the consultation machinery—of which I shall say more in a moment—that the Government have set up to examine the environmental and economic consequences of the project. The impact upon the area of outstanding natural beauty, the heritage coast, Shakespeare cliff and Holywell Coombe—areas and features of great environmental importance—can and will be contained. The Government recognise the importance of this, and I am happy to say that discussions with the planning authorities are taking place on a provision in the Bill that will allow them to continue to play a full part after the Bill has been enacted during the detailed planning stage and construction of the tunnel. I am pleased to tell the House that, in addition, the Government will make arrangements within the Bill to ensure that the Nature Conservancy Council, the Countryside Commission and English Heritage, as the Government's statutory advisers on environmental matters, can be consulted as appropriate.
The third matter that I want to consider is the parliamentary process and the essential consultation machinery that we have established. No great developments of this kind can take place without affecting individuals and individual rights.

Mr. Keith Speed: Before my right hon. Friend deals with the parliamentary process—we are all extremely grateful to the Minister of State for the work that the joint consultative committee is doing—will he say what role he sees for the parish councils, including those affected? They are not directly represented on the committee, but they have a great deal of local knowledge and influence. In the months ahead, I think my right hon. Friend would wish to harness their views and not keep them out in the cold.

Mr. Moore: I am aware that the parish councils have sought a greater role. I have asked my hon. Friend the Minister to comment on that when he winds up the debate.
The issue relates specifically to the rights of individuals. The House is always concerned, as indeed it should be, that those rights should be recognised and respected. Hybrid Bills are the appropriate means to proceed when developments of major national importance impinge upon the rights of individuals. In the case of the Channel tunnel, there has been substantial agreement over the years that the hybrid Bill procedure is the right way for this project.
It is significant that, on 10 February, in their proposed amendment to the Government's motion approving the White Paper on the fixed link, Opposition Members did not renew their call for a public inquiry into this project, recognising that this would have been inappropriate for a matter which Parliament, and Parliament alone, should decide. Equally, on 10 February the hon. Member for Isle of Wight (Mr. Ross), the Liberal party transport spokesman, put on record his acceptance of
the arguments against a full-scale public inquiry".—[Official Report, 10 February 1986; Vol. 91, c. 703.]
In the report of the Transport Select Committee, of which he is a member, we have the conclusion, which he said he endorsed:
The Committee does not therefore recommend that a public inquiry be held.
Under the hybrid Bill procedure, Select Committees in both Houses consider the project's effects upon the interests of those directly affected, and Standing Committees consider the proposed legislation as a whole in detail in the usual way. I have no doubt that the Select Committee will act effectively to safeguard landowners, environmental interests, and local people generally. But the Government have consistently made it clear that this must be complemented by extensive local and national consultation with all interested groups.
Since November 1985, my predecessor, the then Secretary of State for Transport, the Minister of State, Environment Ministers arid officials have attended countless meetings with local associations in Kent and with national bodies to hear the concerns of local people. In direct response to representations by my right hon. and hon. Friends representing Kent constituencies that seemed most likely to be affected by the scheme, my hon Friend the Minister of State, with the assistance of my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State for the Environment established a joint consultative committee—referred to a moment ago by my hon. Friend the Member for Ashford — with the Kent county and district councils and Eurotunnel to consider in full depth how the adverse impact of the tunnel project can be minimised and how its potential benefits can be maximised. The Government intend the Committee should continue in existence right up to the time, in 1993, when the link is expected to open to traffic, and beyond.
Much of the Committee's work is long-term, but on several pressing points the Committee is expected to issue agreed interim or final reports that will be of considerable interest and, I hope, value to the Select Committee—for example, on the economic impact of the link, and on spoil disposal. On spoil—I know the right hon. Member for Lewisham, Deptford (Mr. Silkin) is interested in this issue is interested in this issue—I can say now that if a preferred solution emerges from the consultative committee for an alternative method for disposal of the spoil from the tunnel workings to that proposed in the Bill, the Government will adopt this, and bring forward such amendments to the Bill as are appropriate.
I submit that never before has established hybrid Bill procedure been backed up with such a thorough programme to consider all the consequences of the project in partnership with local authorities and other bodies. At the same time, the Government have gone to quite exceptional lengths to ensure that potential petitioners understand the Select Committee procedure and can make full use of it. My Department has now distributed more


than 20,000 copies of a leaflet entitled "Channel Tunnel—How to make Your Voice Heard," the leaflet that has been praised by such dispassionate bodies as the Council for the Protection of Rural England for its clarity and utility.

Mr. Sydney Bidwell: Have the Government estimated the impact on the present ferry industry and the other jobs which exist but which will not exist when the project gets under way?

Mr. Moore: I referred to that earlier in my speech, and it was referred to in the White Paper. I have already made specific comments about that.
I now turn to the Bill itself. Part I is introductory, referring to the treaty and concession agreement, and defining the tunnel system.
Part II contains most of the so-called private provisions of the Bill. It confers compulsory acquisition powers on the Secretary of State and it confers on the concessionaires the basic powers they need to construct and maintain the tunnel system. All the usual protections and compensation for those whose land is compulsorily acquired or injuriously affected will apply.
Part III contains the main "public" provisions of the Bill, dealing with jurisdiction and provision for juxtaposed frontier controls whereby customs, immigration, security and any other checks are carried out before passengers enter the tunnel system. There are powers to make orders to ensure that British controls can be exercised on the French side without any loss of effectiveness, and to allow British customs and immigration officials to detain offenders on the French side and, if necessary, bring them to the United Kingdom for trial, and vice versa. Other clauses deal with intergovernmental supervision of the project, with byelaws, and with the consequences of termination of the project either on expiry of the concession period after 55 years or prematurely.
Part IV of the Bill provides powers for the construction of a four-and-a-half-mile stretch of the A20 between Folkestone and Court Wood, bypassing the village of Capel-le-Ferne.
Part V of the Bill contains miscellaneous and financial provisions.
The objectives of the Bill are clear: to provide the necessary legislative framework for a project of lasting importance to the nation. On each and every count, I believe it can bring tangible and permanent benefits to our country.
If we ask, first, on employment, will it bring benefit to Britain?, the answer must be yes — jobs in the immediate future on construction and an effect upon industry as a whole through the more efficient transport of our goods abroad.
Is it good for us as a trading nation? Yes—because a development that allows trade to take place more quickly, more reliably and therefore more cheaply, must be good for trade.
Is it good for British Rail? The answer was best, if rather excitedly, expressed in the words of my hon. Friend the Member for Christchurch (Mr. Adley):
The 250-mile barrier which makes British Rail's freight prospects currently so dismal would be smashed to smithereens by the prospect of a rail tunnel." — [Official Report, 9 December 1985; Vol. 88, c. 698.]

Is it good for motorists? Yes. Those who prefer to travel by sea will certainly still be able to do so, but they will also have the option of a faster, more reliable, service by shuttle.
Is it good for business men and holidaymakers? Yes, because they will be able to get to northern Europe by trains in times comparable to air travel.

Sir John Osborn: My right hon. Friend is listing some of the advantages of this project. It may interest him to know that I left Paris this morning at 8.15 am and was in London at 2.30 pm. I travelled by ferry. I would have been in London two hours earlier but for waiting time.
My right hon. Friend has listed the advantages, but has he had time to discuss them with the European Council of Transport Ministers? That Council has tried to improve the barriers across the Baltic and it has already improved the barriers across the Alps. Why should we miss out on the advantages which benefit Europe as a result of the work of the Council? I hope he will be an active member of the Council. I welcome my right hon. Friend to his new post.

Mr. Moore: I thank my hon. Friend for his last remark. I recall my hon. Friend's words in one of the earlier debates on the Channel tunnel when he quoted the views of the Sheffield chamber of commerce. My hon. Friend is conscious of the potential for jobs and industry in his area.
I have not yet had the opportunity of meeting the Transport Ministers, but I shall be meeting them the week after next in Brussels. I am already arranging bilateral meetings, and the first meeting is with my French counterpart on Monday of next week. I acknowledge the points that my hon. Friend effectively made in previous debates.
What about the environment? Of course there will be an environmental impact locally: that is inevitable. But it can and will be contained. By providing direct rail freight links with the continent, many lorries will be removed from Britain's roads.
Above all, what effect will it have on our national attitudes?

Mr. Andrew Faulds: Will the Minister give way?

Mr. Moore: I have given way throughout this debate.

Mr. Faulds: Not to me.

Mr. Moore: If the hon. Gentleman will kindly let me conclude—

Mr. Faulds: This is an important point.

Mr. Moore: Very well.

Mr. Faulds: The Minister has listed the supposed advantages of this enterprise. Will he answer a simple question? Will its safety be guaranteed against both natural and unnatural disasters?

Mr. Moore: Safety aspects will be as important as all other aspects of travel. I am sure that the hon. Gentleman would like to study the provisions of the Bill more carefully. I look forward to further debate and discussion with him, if the Bill reaches Standing Committee.
What effect will the tunnel have on our national attitudes? In the past, we were never afraid to venture abroad and never worried that contact with other countries


would put our national identity at risk. But of late we seem to have grown fearful of change and timid in the face of challenge.
The truth is that our national identity is entirely secure. The unique qualities of British institutions, history and culture are recognised the world over. They are not threatened by contact with other European countries. Indeed, we are already part of Europe, connected in a multitude of ways, but physically less effectively connected than we could be. To improve the physical connection is plain good sense. It will offer unprecedented opportunities for business expansion, cultural enrichment and individual travel. It could stimulate a whole new era of endeavour and achievement for our country. It is in that light that the Channel tunnel becomes an opportunity, not a threat, and it is in that spirit that I commend the Bill to the House.

Mr. Robert Hughes: I beg to move, to leave out from "That" to the end of the Question and to add instead thereof:
this House declines to give a Second Reading to a Bill in respect of which the Government has failed to establish adequate machinery to ensure the maximum United Kingdom content of employment and materials during the construction phase of the Channel Tunnel; has failed to develop plans fully to equip British Rail or to diversify potential benefits in accordance with regional economic policy; and has not considered the creation of a Channel Office of Fair Trading to ensure that freedom of choice will be maintained for cross-Channel custom for freight and passenger travel.
First, I welcome the new Secretary of State for Transport and congratulate him on his promotion. I am sure that we shall have many hours of debate together. He is the fourth Secretary of State for Transport whom I have faced across the Dispatch Box. His predecessor was promoted, the one before that was sacked, and the one before that was promoted and then consigned to the nether regions of Northern Ireland which, I suspect, he is inhabiting unhappily. I do not know whether that comforts the present incumbent of the post, but perhaps he will bear it in mind.
In the reactions in the press to the right hon. Gentleman's appointment there have been suggestions, which I accept as being accurate, that he has a fresh and inquiring mind. There is no doubt that the Department of Transport certainly needs that. The Secretary of State has inherited a transport system in crisis and chaos created by his predecessor the right hon. Member for Cirencester and Tewkesbury (Mr. Ridley). This is not the occasion to canvass these wider issues to any extent, so I shall content myself with saying that it does not matter which face is fitted into which picture frame if the policy does not change. If the policies do not change, we shall be severely critical of the right hon. Gentleman and give them serious examination.
I am sure that the right hon. Gentleman would have wished to begin his work in his new post on a less controversial and complex subject than this one. Indeed, he hinted at that in his speech. On the other hand, although the principle has been set, a fresh approach to the consequences of the decision is essential and will bear fruit. The record of the right hon. Gentleman's predecessor is lamentable. Having set out his high hopes for jobs, industry, and commerce, and spoken of all the

employment during the construction phase, the former Secretary of State left it at that and took no further responsibility.
The Government's policy so far has been based on market forces and European economic competition rules and their attitude has been that they will be satisfied with whatever jobs result in the United Kingdom. We do not share that opinion. We have already been over the course on international competition, and we can draw on lessons from the past. I refer specifically to the construction and operational phases of North sea oil development.
No one disputes that the establishment of an Offshore Supplies Office—I cannot remember, and I should have checked, how far the right hon. Gentleman was involved in that when he was at the Department of Energy, but I think he was more involved in coal — significantly improved the British content of contracts. Obviously, 100 per cent. success has not been achieved and, indeed, is unattainable. However, the work of the OSO has been invaluable to British industry. It is imperative that we learn the lessons of the North sea, and analyse our experiences there so that we get a better share of Channel tunnel orders. Unless the Government act quickly, the opportunities and hopes that the Secretary of State expressed and which share will be lost. In contrast to the North sea oil experience where there is a continuing development, the construction of the tunnel involves a finite period and a finite quantity of work.
To some extent, British industry shares our worries. Today I received a letter sent on behalf of GEC. GEC is concerned to ensure that British manufacturers get a square deal on ordering. It draws particular attention to the class 91 locomotive, which it believes will provide a true flagship for United Kingdom products worldwide, and to the opportunities to export that locomotive to China, India, South America and the USSR. It believes that the proposed routes will eventually extend into the rest of Europe, allowing us further opportunity to export there. GEC points out that the technology is proven and that British Rail has already chosen the class 91. It believes, especially given the severe job losses in British Rail Engineering Ltd. and given that many of the sites for British Rail's manufacturing are in the north-west, that this contract provides an opportunity for exports, manufacturing and jobs, providing the French do not get a free run of the market. The future of the United Kingdom railway industry is far too important for that, and the Secretary of State must take that on board.
I am not persuaded that the Government recognise the urgency or have sufficient initiative to equip British Rail to meet the challenge of increasing its freight and passenger traffic. The opportunities certainly exist. However, I shall not rehearse the anxieties of my hon. Friends in the midlands, the north and Scotland that the tunnel will act as a magnet for new industrial investment to the detriment of regional economic policy. I share some of those concerns.
There is a need to diversify the benefits offered by the tunnel, especially from the south-east coast. It is a strange paradox that those north of Watford say strongly that all the benefits will go to the south-east coast, while those on the south-east coast say that they will get none of the benefits and all of the hassle, and that in any case they do not want the benefits of increased industry.

Mrs. Edwina Currie: Does the hon. Gentleman recognise that hon. Members who represent the areas that will help to make the rail stock are keen to reap the benefits that will come to us? In other words, many of us north of Watford think that the Channel tunnel is an extremely good idea.

Mr. Hughes: Yes. My point is that there is definitely a paradox and contradiction in the two views. Those furthest from the Channel believe that they will not get the benefit, and those closest to it say that the hassle will be too great or that they do not want the benefits. The hon. Lady is concerned with workshops in Derby, but I do not think that at this stage her concern will help her.

Sir Anthony Meyer: Has the hon. Gentleman not sketched exactly the scenario that private concerns cannot see their long-term interests properly, and that this is manifestly an area in which the Government must take the general long-term view?

Mr. Hughes: I am not sure how that intervention fits in with my point. In a way it fits in with my argument that the Government should not simply say, "We are providing a Bill with machinery to facilitate the building of the tunnel and thereafter it has nothing to do with us. As private money is being invested to build the tunnel, that is it for us." The Government must take into account regional economic policy and make every effort to provide focal points for freight and passenger traffic, not just in Kent and London, but elsewhere. That is absolutely essential.
One terminal at Waterloo is not enough. There must be facilities such as marshalling yards and freight traffic centres to increase the possibilities of long-distance traffic. Some people have serious worries about Waterloo, and they are not assuaged by the fact that British Rail cannot tell them what will happen. The people of Waterloo are worried that the underground links and the adjacent road network will be inadequate to cope with the increased Channel tunnel traffic. People are also worried about the degradation of the environment around Waterloo, which includes the National theatre and the Royal Festival hall arts complex on the south bank, as well as residential areas. The people there say that there should be a public inquiry. I shall return to the subject of a public inquiry later, but the Bill sets aside all public inquiry procedures for roadworks, and so on.

Mr. David Crouch: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Mr. Hughes: This must be the last time that I give way, as I wish to leave time for other hon. Members to speak.

Mr. Crouch: I am most grateful to the hon. Gentleman. He has a Scottish constituency and speaks from the Opposition Front Bench. The hon. Gentleman has a point about Waterloo, which will no doubt be argued by the hon. Member for Vauxhall (Mr. Holland). But will the hon. Gentleman give an assurance that he is not making a special plea that the tunnel should not be built in south-east England or Kent on the ground that that would not be of great advantage to the north of England or Scotland? That would be a Luddite argument, because it would be no good building the tunnel in Middlesbrough or Clydebank. I respect the fact that the hon. Gentleman

appreciates the problems facing the United Kingdom with trade and so on, but surely there is only one place to build a Channel tunnel, and that is in south-east England.

Mr. Hughes: I shall not repeat the story of my predecessor for Aberdeen, North, who suggested that instead of a Channel tunnel we ought to have a tunnel between Aberdeen and Oslo. But if the hon. Gentleman looks up the debate in Hansard, he will see what I said about that. However, I take the hon. Gentleman's point.
It is essential that the areas north of Watford are properly planned for, and that the massive investment made in the south-east of England, in the tunnel and the infrastructure, does not disadvantage those areas. When I first became involved in politics, we in the north of Scotland used to argue about the problems faced by Scotland because of the so-called golden triangle of the midlands, London and the south-east. We now know that the Government have destroyed industry in the midlands and in much of London, yet the same worries prevail.
We want the benefits to be spread more evenly and that is why we want to diversify the facilities. We want British Rail to have the opportunity to develop its freight traffic and to have the equipment to do so. I am not arguing that the tunnel should not proceed, but the project should be carried out in the best possible way. There will undoubtedly be advantages, and regional economic policy could benefit. Indeed, the traffic congestion and environmental damage to be found in Kent might benefit if the amount of traffic in the Kent area is reduced.
The weakest part of the Government's policy is that it takes no account of regional economic or industrial policy. Some Conservative Members may be surprised about that, but I am not. The Secretary of State has brought with him from the Treasury the naive belief that planning is unnecessary and that the market can do it all. Of course there is much to be gained from completion of the Channel tunnel, but whether the benefits will outweigh the destruction that such a major project is bound to cause is something that can be judged only by future historians.

Mr. Adley: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Mr. Hughes: This is the last time that I shall give way.

Mr. Adley: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for giving way. With hindsight, he no doubt regrets the Labour party's decision to cancel the rail-only tunnel in 1975, which would have brought even greater benefits. Will he make it clear that the Labour party supports the building of the tunnel and that hon. Members on both sides of the House should press on the Government the need to develop the infrastructure in the midlands and the north, as he has described?

Mr. Hughes: The hon. Gentleman will have to contain himself and be patient. I shall come to that point later, and no doubt he will keenly await my ansswer.
There will be a significant change in freight and passenger transport patterns. Indeed, those patterns may be distorted. However, that is a matter for speculation. But a good and prudent Government would now examine the problems. They should not wait until issues have arisen and then try to remedy the situation. It would not be good enough if the Government did that.
There is widespread concern that once the Channel tunnel becomes operative, the economics of the scheme will compel the concessionaires to maximise their traffic


to such an extent that they will try to create a virtual monopoly by driving competitors out of business through predatory pricing. In meetings with outside bodies, the previous Secretary of State implied that he was, to some extent, worried about that. But the Government's response to those concerns baffles me. Clause 33(1) clearly states:
The Restrictive Trade Practices Act 1976 shall not apply to any Concession agreement and shall be deemed never to have applied to any such agreement.
That sends alarm bells ringing. There are various references later to the Director General of Fair Trading, and so on, but apparently the mechanisms of competition policy are to some extent being dismantled.

Mr. Moore: I would not normally seek to intervene, but it is important to put it on the record that of course the Restrictive Trade Practices Act relates to the concession agreement. But my right hon. Friend the former Secretary of State made it clear that the concessionaires will be subject to United Kingdom, French and Community competition law. Clearly Community competition law makes provision for the investigation, prevention or remedying of monopoly practices or anti-competition behaviour, including both predatory pricing and abuse of a dominant position. Those aspects are still covered. I thought that the hon. Gentleman might want to be reminded of that.

Mr. Hughes: I am aware of that, but I like to see the evidence with my own eyes. When the Minister of State replies to the debate, perhaps he will say why it was necessary to include that provision. It says clearly that the Act does not apply and
shall be deemed never to have applied".
That provision must be there for a purpose, and I hope that the Minister will explain it.
There are serious worries that the ferry business could be driven out, perhaps never to return. The Government are keen to mouth slogans about competition and freedom of choice. I believe in freedom of choice. By coincidence, today's edition of the Daily Telegraph says that the Government are concerned about the machinery for ensuring fair competition. It says:
The announcement of the Whitehall review which could also bring in outsiders, has been held up while the Government agonised over the terms of reference to take account of criticism about consistency in handling 'mega mergers' and tactics adopted by companies to avoid Monopolies and Merger Commission references.
Mr Channon is not anxious to change the basis of a merger policy based on competition but wants the committee of civil servants to look closely at points which have produced the complaints. They include:
1. The time it takes for the MMC to complete an investigation … Updating restrictive trade practice rules to discourage new forms of price fixing and cartels will form a key part of the examination but City attention will focus on the merger element.
That reinforces my point that the existing machinery is far too slow and cannot act quickly enough to prevent damage. That is why we say that there should be a mechanism to monitor the interplay between sea and air traffic and the fixed link.
Of course, a predatory pricing policy need not always work one way. It is perfectly conceivable that a predatory pricing regime could be adopted by the ferry operators acting in concert or by the airlines acting in concert, because some people believe that the majority of the passengers using the Channel link will be attracted away

from the airlines. Those operators could act in concert to the disadvantage of the tunnel business, and that would be just as unacceptable to us.
The Government have not so far shown even the slightest inclination to discuss the issues or to address themselves to the problem of finding solutions. In our amendment we put forward one such solution, the establishment of a Channel office of fair trading which would concern itself specifically with monitoring the operation of the tunnel.

Mr. Crouch: Will the hon. Gentleman give way? I should like to say something on that pertinent point.

Mr. Hughes: I said three times that I would not give way and each time I broke my word. I am a man of honour and this time I mean it. I am sorry, I will not give way.

Mr. Crouch: On a point of order. The hon. Gentleman is misleading the House.

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Sir Paul Dean): The hon. Member for Aberdeen, North (Mr. Hughes) has made it clear that he is not giving way.

Mr. Hughes: Perhaps I could now turn to clause 26(2) [Interruption.] The hon. Gentleman will have to contain himself until he makes his own speech. I have already spoken for a long time and I do not wish to prevent any of my hon. Friends or any Government hon. Member from speaking. It is Government hon. Members who are determined to prevent my hon. Friends from speaking and I want to be fairer than they are.
Clause 26(2) limits the involvement of the Government in the running of the tunnel if the company should go bust, either at about the time of completion or after completion, to a period of three months. That is far too short a period and in his speech the Secretary of State certainly said nothing about how that would work. He did not explain that, and I invite him to do so. Is it correct that if the company goes bust he will simply appoint a receiver, or will the Government themselves seek to dispose of the company? Under the Bill, could the Government directly, through the Department of Transport, take over the company or could they delegate British Rail, to take one example, to take over the company and keep it running? Those are questions to which we must have answers.
I now come to a matter that is not in the Bill and was not referred to by the Secretary of State. I am talking about a Government share in CTG. This issue was raised at a meeting on 17 March between the Transport Committee and the construction industry committee of the Trades Union Congress. The Minister of State was present at that meeting together with a number of officials. I have the TUC record of the meeting.—We know that questions are always asked about whose minute is accurate, but there can be no quarrel about the minute of that meeting.
The TUC asked the Secretary of State, the right hon. Member for Cirencester and Tewkesbury (Mr. Ridley), whether a golden share would be acquired to protect defence interests or deal with foreign shareholdings. The reply given by a Department of Transport official was:
a golden share was not in the Concession Agreement for technical reasons, and that precise kind of arrangement was not an option in France. As far as the UK operation was concerned it could simply be written into the arrangements and legislation was not needed. It was therefore a matter for bilateral discussion with CTG. The Government was in principle in favour of a golden share and CTG did not object so it was not just a question of the mechanics.


The Secretary of State went on to say that
control of the Tunnel needed to be in the UK but the golden share would not be used as any kind of lever over trading operations and so on. All the golden share could do was allow Government to control who made the decisions and see it did not fall into the wrong hands.
Will the Secretary of State tell us whether a golden share is being acquired in CTG, or Eurotunnel as it is now described? If it is to be acquired, I hope he will make the details available to us. If a golden share is not to be acquired, he must explain why that is so when the principle of a golden share has been accepted and CTG has no objections to it. If it is simply a matter of bilateral discussions, why has the matter of such acquisition been dropped—if it has been dropped?
The Secretary of State said that it was significant that in our reasoned amendment we withdrew our call for a public inquiry. There is no significance in that. The absence of a call for a public inquiry does not mean for one minute that we do not still believe that a full public inquiry would have been the best way to proceed, and is still the best way to proceed. However, at a later stage we have a committal motion. We have looked at that motion and have put down amendments to it. If some of our amendments are accepted by the Government they will provide a reasonable and proper alternative to a full public inquiry. We are not dropping the demand for a public inquiry because it is reasserting itself in a slightly different form.
Our attitude to the tunnel can be expressed by the phrase, "If it were to be done, 'twere better that it be done well." That is not an exact Shakespearean quotation.

Mr. Faulds: I must warn the House that to quote that particular play is profoundly unlucky.

Mr. Hughes: I hope it is not unlucky for me. Perhaps my hon. Friend the Member for Warley, East (Mr. Faulds) did not hear the quotation in full and I shall repeat it for him. The quotation that I used was, "If it were to be done, 'twere better that it be done well." The actual quotation is, "t' were done quickly." I did not use the proper quotation because it is not particularly apposite and referred to the assasination of Julius Caesar. It is certainly not my intention to kill off the Channel Tunnel Bill. I want to encourage the success of the CTG. The amendment makes it perfectly clear why we wish to decline the Second Reading. We decline it simply because the Government have not paid sufficient attention to the overall effects of the plan. I invite any hon. Member who is prepared to look at the issue in an objective way to vote with me tonight.

Mr. Peter Rees: I hesitate to intervene in a dialogue in the Labour party between the hon. Member for Warley, East (Mr. Faulds) and the right hon. Member for Aberdeen, North (Mr. Hughes) and say who is to play the part of Lady Macbeth or whether the Channel tunnel is to be brought to Dunsinane. I leave that to them to sort out. The hon. Member for Aberdeen, North has made some admirably balanced speeches during the two debates on the principle of the tunnel that took place just before and just after Christmas. Now, after certain vicissitudes we come to the Second Reading, and the hon. Gentleman still maintains a posture of admirable balance. He tells us—

and perhaps this is the first time he has said so specifically—that he encourages the success of the Channel Tunnel Group.
It is right that the people of Britain and especially my constituents and those of my hon. Friend the Member for Canterbury (Mr. Crouch) should know where the Labour party stands on this great issue. No doubt the hon. Member for Isle of Wight (Mr. Ross) will tell us where the alliance now stands on this great issue. If he will allow me to say so, the hon. Member for Isle of Wight has been much more candid, direct and unequivocal and has reproved the Government on a variety of occasions for not being dynamic and thrusting enough on the question of the Channel tunnel.
There are in fact reservations in all parts of the House about this great project. That is understandable. The reservations are not confined to those members of the Labour party who are sponsored by the National Union of Seamen. I well understand the difficulties of the hon. Member for Aberdeen, North. He must look, on the one side, to the National Union of Seamen and, on the other, to the National Union of Railwaymen and, statesman that he is, he must produce something that tonight will bring all his hon. Friends into the Lobby against the Government—if that is, indeed, his intention. I congratulate him upon his dexterity. However, I am not certain whether he will be able to maintain his position right through to the conclusion of the Bill. Nevertheless, we are grateful to him for his unequivocal statement that he is there to encourage the success of the Channel Tunnel Group.
It is my very pleasant duty to congratulate my right hon. Friend who has assumed the onerous responsibilities of Secretary of State for Transport. Indeed, I wondered whether I should congratulate him or condole with him, since he has immediately assumed, in mid-flow, responsibility for this great but contentious hybrid Bill. Dare I say—expressing purely a personal point of view — that he may find it some slight relief from the Committee stage of the Finance Bill? As he and I know to our cost, Committee Room 10 has its disadvantages.
With commendable bravura, my right hon. Friend ended on a high note by emphasising the national interest in the conclusion of this great project. I do not propose to debate that matter with him. As the Member of Parliament for Dover, I should like to emphasise to him the impact of the Channel tunnel on east Kent. In the second part of his speech he touched, perhaps understandably briefly, on the east Kent dimension. Although I know that, with his customary assiduity, he will have read all the previous debates and that he will have kept an open ear to the tremors on both sides of the House about this great issue, I must emphasise to him the deep and legitimate concern that is felt, particularly in Dover but throughout east Kent, about the Channel tunnel.
I shall not expand on that point, because a number of my hon. Friends are here to represent the particular interests of other parts of east Kent. My constituents' deep concern can perhaps be encapsulated in this form. Over 12,000 people are employed in the port of Dover and on the ferries. I know that the hon. Member for Aberdeen, North will agree with me when I say that, naturally and understandably, they are very concerned about their prospects.
I hope that I do not show undue bias when I emphasise that the ferry services have been enormously flexible during the past 15 or 20 years. They have expanded in


order to respond to the opportunities that have developed, and I believe that they have served the economy well. Also, I emphasise that they have not required or asked for Government support.
It is self-evident that if it is to succeed to any degree—if it does not succeed, all sorts of other problems will be posed, including problems posed by this Bill—the Channel tunnel must take some business that otherwise would have passed across the Channel by ferry. How much business will be taken from the ferries is a matter for speculation. There is a degree of common ground between myself and the hon. Member for Aberdeen, North: that if the basis of the case for the Channel tunnel is that there should be competing means of crossing the Channel—my right hon. Friend emphasised the fact that our biggest export market lies across the Channel, and a large part of our armed forces are to be found in the British Army of the Rhine—the competition between the Channel tunnel and the ferries must be fair.
I am sure that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State and my hon. Friend the Minister of State who is to wind up the debate will want to dwell on this point not only tonight but in the months to come and will want to ensure that there is a fair balance in the competition between the ferries and the tunnel. Given fair competition, I am assured by my friends in Dover and in the other Channel ports—an assurance that I completely accept—that the ferries will compete successfully. Their confidence is demonstrated by the orders put in for new ships and by the investment of the Dover harbour hoard which I am sure the whole House, and in particular my right hon. Friend, will commend.
The hon. Member for Aberdeen, North said that there should be a special regime for the Channel tunnel. I am not certain whether I want there to be a special regime for it. I just want there to be a rigorous application of both national and European Community competition regulations. There should be a rigorous application of those regulations at the moment when unfair competition starts to develop. I recall from my experience in the Department of Trade that the complaint about dumping was that the responses were not sufficiently sharp and rapid. I hope that my right hon. Friend will bear that point very much in mind. It is fine to enunciate the general principle that, for example, there should be no predatory pricing, but by the time that kind of feature demonstrates itself the position of a competitor may have been destroyed.
I know that my right hon. Friend, who bears responsibilities for the British shipping industry, will be very concerned to ensure that the ferries, which form a very significant part of the British merchant marine, with all that that means in both economic and defence terms, will be very quick to ensure that there is a sensitive and rapid response to any unfair measures that might be taken by the operators of the Channel tunnel. I am not accusing them of anything. These are early days, but I sound a warning note.

Mr. Crouch: I am sure that my right hon. and learned Friend will appreciate that by intervening I am not seeking to weaken his case or to argue with him in any way whatsoever, but does he not agree that the present costs of travelling across the Channel by sea do not represent the cheapest route and method of travelling, that the introduction of travel by means of the Channel tunnel will provide a form of competition which may stimulate the

ferries to reduce their prices, as I believe they should have done long ago, and that this will be very good for all those who believe in free choice and competition?

Mr. Rees: My hon. Friend serves only to develop the fundamental point that I am making: that there must be free and fair competition. I note my hon. Friend's criticism of the cost of crossing the Channel, but the cost of flying from Heathrow or Gatwick to Charles de Gaulle or Orly is also something to which I would direct the attention of my right hon. Friend the new Secretary of State for Transport. I pay a tribute to his predecessor, my right hon. Friend the Member for Cirencester and Tewkesbury (Mr. Ridley), who has done something about opening up that particular market. It is not for me to stimulate opposition from other quarters in the House, but it may well be that at the end of the day it will be the airlines rather than the ferries that will suffer more from the operation of the Channel tunnel. It is not for me to express any hopes in this direction, but if this were to develop into a debate about competition, I should probably be subject to stern admonition from you, Mr. Deputy Speaker. Nevertheless, it is a dimension that I should like to examine.

Sir John Farr: I am most grateful to my right hon. and learned Friend for giving way. On the question of the effect upon the employees of the Dover harbour board, a petition from the Dover harbour board was submitted last week to a meeting of the Select Committee. My impression was that the employees of the Dover harbour board who presented the petition to the Committee were very worried indeed about their prospects and felt that if the Channel tunnel were to go ahead as planned, it could mean the loss of many thousands of jobs. Everyone is concerned about that, so is my right hon. and learned Friend able to reassure me on that point?

Mr. Rees: No. I wish that I could reassure my hon. Friend, but it is not my responsibility to reassure him. That is one of my worries. Indeed, it is a worry that, against my normal practice—my Division record only has to be looked at—may well compel me into a different Lobby from that of my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Transport. My point is precisely that over 12,000 people are employed in or about the port of Dover and in or about the ferries, and I feel that I am entitled to emphasise their legitimate concern about their future. I do not intend to speculate about the precise number of jobs that will be lost. It may be that some balancing jobs will be created, but it is a small comfort to somebody who has spent his life at sea to be offered a job on land punching tickets at the portal of the tunnel. That may be an alternative form of economic activity, but it is hardly something for which many of my constituents have been trained.
It may be more appropriate to raise this when we debate the money resolution, but I know that there is great concern outside the House, despite the clear statements made by my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister that public money should not be devoted to the operation of a tunnel. I have considered carefully the money resolution; perhaps it is a more appropriate matter for my hon. Friend the Financial Secretary to the Treasury, but if not, perhaps my hon. Friend the Minister of State will deal with it when he replies. The money resolution should not authorise the Government to give direct or covert support to the private sector consortium that will be operating the Channel


tunnel. I have in mind especially paragraph (1)(c) of the money resolution, but I may be ruled out of order if I dealt with that in more depth.
One matter which is mentioned directly in the Bill, and which relates to the root of fair competition between the tunnel and the ferries, is road connections. I am happy that the A20-M20 extension, at least beyond and round the village of Capel-le-Ferne, is included in the Bill. I hope that that will allow progress to be made, because there is concern already about the weight of traffic, leaving aside the additional traffic that must be drawn in during the construction period. I hope that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State or my hon. Friend the Minister of State will give us an unequivocal assurance that this does not mean any lack of enthusiasm or any faltering in carrying through the extension to Dover. We will ask him many questions about the point of entry at the appropriate time. There is concern that the extension is being pushed through only to facilitate the building of the tunnel. If the port of Dover is to compete fairly, it must have the connection.
Similarly, I hope that my hon. Friend the Minister of State can spell out explicitly his plans to ensure that the A2 will be—I hope that I shall be forgiven for using the word—dualled all the way down to the port. I was enormously grateful to my noble Friend Lord Peyton, who occupied my hon. Friend's position, for authorising the building of the eastern bypass round Dover——

Mr. Speed: And me!

Mr. Rees: My hon. Friend the Member for Ashford (Mr. Speed) played a particular role in that too, and I am delighted to pay tribute to him for his special contribution over the years, even when he was not a Member of Parliament for Kent.

Mr. Crouch: The pressure came from the Back Benches.

Mr. Rees: Yes, indeed.
I am bound to say that the traffic has outgrown the existing scope of the eastern bypass. I hope that my right hon. and hon. Friends will bear in mind the essential need. if the position of the port of Dover is to be maintained. to have a proper connection all the way from Lydden down to the port.

Mr. Adley: In view of my right hon. and learned Friend's former incarnation, does he agree that in considering the road and rail links and everything that will inevitably be needed for the construction of the Channel tunnel—I recognise his constituency position—in all fairness, the road and rail expenditure should be regarded as a legitimate public expense to be borne by the taxpayer? At present, British Rail is expected to fund many of those costs out of its operating profits. That is ridiculous, because it is making a loss.

Mr. Rees: I suppose that my hon. Friend refers to my previous incarnation as Chief Secretary to the Treasury. I shall not be drawn into a general debate about overall public expenditure. There will be time enough to debate that. It must be for my right hon. and hon. Friends who are much more up-to-date with the problems than I am, or probably ever was, to determine in their departmental budgets where they wish to place the thrust of their expenditure.
In answer to my hon. Friend the Member for Christchurch (Mr. Adley), may I say that the Exchequer has been pumping money into British Rail to the tune of just under £1 billion a year. It is not for me to say whether my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State, having considered his budget, believes that a furher allocation should be made. We are talking mostly about trunk roads, but my hon. Friend perceptively put his finger on the sensitive issue: some lateral roads will be of considerable importance to us in east Kent. That will be a matter for Kent county council. I repeat that since Kent county council will be exposed to expenditure that goes beyond the normal responsibilities of a county council, I hope that the present Chief Secretary and my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Transport will look kindly on any applications made by the county council in this regard.
There is anxiety that British Rail may not be completely committed to maintaining the rail link between Folkestone, Dover, Deal, Sandwich and the Isle of Thanet. My hon. Friend the Member for Thanet, South (Mr. Aitken) may wish to discuss this point. It may be said that there is always the alternative route from Victoria to Dover through Canterbury——

Mr. Crouch: We need both.

Mr. Rees: Of course we do. My hon. Friend the Member for Canterbury (Mr. Crouch) is right. We need that lateral connection. I believe that British Rail has committed itself at least until the end of the century, but that leaves a feeling of unease—after all, we are only 14 years away from the end of the century—about what might happen thereafter. If the rail connection were discontinued, it would disadvantage Dover as against the operators of the tunnel.
I hope that my hon. Friend the Minister of State can bring us up to date on the Department's thinking on the following matters. It must be fair that the customs and immigration procedures on the ferries will be as quick and effective as any that are devised for the tunnel. The safety regulations for the operation of the tunnel must be no less onerous than those that are currently and properly imposed on the merchant marine.
I do not wish to cover the entire area of the environment because I have wearied the House at least two or three times with our anxieties in east Kent. However, I must mention the transfer of spoil from the workings at Shakespeare cliff. Some could be taken directly to Cheriton, but some at the lower end may have to be taken away, and there is anxiety as to where it will be dumped. There was a suggestion that it may be dumped at Dungeness, for reasons connected, I believe, with the Folkestone district water company and others. I have no doubt that my hon. and learned Friend the Under-Secretary of State for Trade and Industry, who represents Folkestone and Hythe, will have strong views about that which he may have communicated in his inimitable way to my right hon. and hon. Friends.
I must emphasise to my right hon. and hon. Friends that the spoil must not be carried away by lorry. It must be carried away by rail. We are talking of an excess of about 1 million tonnes of spoil. The roads of east Kent would become intolerable——

Mr. Roger Gale: They are already.

Mr. Rees: That is a fair point from my hon. Friend, who has problems with the Thanet way, which no doubt he will ventilate in due course.
The transport of shale from the three east Kent pits, with which my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State is familiar in view of one of his earlier incarnations, forms the basis of the works at Cheriton and thereabouts. There is deep concern in the villages of east Kent, some in my constituency and some in the constituency of my hon. Friend the Member for Thanet, South (Mr. Aitken), about the transport of that shale by lorry. I press my right hon. and hon. Friends to impose a condition that that shale should be transported by rail. Only in that way will it be bearable in the affected parts of east Kent.

Mr. Crouch: The proposed route to transport shale from the pits in east Kent to mix with the chalk taken out from the digging of the tunnel to make the base for the terminal at Cheriton is the connecting road that leads from the A2 to the A20 or M20. It is a narrow road. I use it frequently, and have done for 20 years. It is about 12 miles long. When one is on it, one cannot even overtake a long car. If there are lorries on it, there is no question of overtaking and if there was a succession of lorries carrying shale it would be impossible.

Mr. Peter Rees: My hon. Friend is right to emphasise his experience, which I am sure that all of us who are privileged to represent Kent constituencies have shared.
I come to the competitive position of east Kent. The hon. Member for Aberdeen, North rightly emphasised the concerns of other parts of the country that too much economic activity may be drawn down to east Kent. He emphasised the contradiction between the anxieties of hon. Members representing east Kent and those representing other parts of the country. It is not for me to speak for hon. Members representing east Kent collectively, all of whom are here in the Chamber today, but our concern is that there may well be a concentration of activity in the constituency of my hon. Friend the Member for Ashford, the consequences of which he will no doubt explore if he is successful in intervening in the debate.
It is possible, as I know from the days when there was more railway activity in Ashford, for people to travel to work every day from Dover and Deal, but I think that that would be an unhealthy development. We want to see a diffusion of economic activity, particularly along the coastal strip where the unemployment figures are uncomfortably high. It is a matter for speculation how much and what kind of business can be attracted there, but it is important to create the maximum opportunities. I know that is not primarily the responsibility of my right hon. Friend, but I want a powerful voice to speak for us in Government discussions that he has, for example, with his right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry.
What is not a matter of speculation is the resources that the French Government are pouring into the north-west of France. I have touched on this on previous occasions. Since then, however, we have acquired a greater perception of what is involved in the published documents. The case is that north-west France, Nord-Pas de Calais, is a depressed area. I am happy to say that we cannot claim to suffer quite the disadvantages of declining industries that are found in that area. None the less, my right hon.

Friend will recognise that as the communications across the Channel are improved — bigger, faster, more efficient ferries—with perhaps, if the Bill recommends itself to the House, a form of fixed link, east Kent w ill be competing not just with mid-Kent and west Kent, the midlands and even Aberdeen, but with north-west France. It is crucial that a fair balance be struck.
I do not suffer from any paranoia about the competitive skills of our French neighbours, who are agreeable and efficient in many fields. But I think that we can hold our own, provided that the scales are not tilted too far in their favour. I therefore think that, since undeniably the Channel tunnel will dislocate and vary the economic patterns that we have experienced in the past 20 to 25 years, east Kent will deserve some kind of special status. As I said, I hope that my right hon. Friend will prove a powerful advocate in talking to other of our right hon. Friends on the subject. I hope too that he will ensure that Development of Tourism Act 1962 is administered with due sympathy, for example, to the hoteliers and boarding-house keepers who form such an important element of our economic community in east Kent. It is crucially important that the benefits, if there are to be benefits, of the project should be felt in the area that will immediately take the brunt and where the cost will be paid.
I come now to express a few concerns about the Select Committee, although I have no doubt that we shall be debating the scope of that a little later. It may well he that local authorities are well equipped to put in appropriately drafted petitions—indeed, I know that many already have those organised. My right hon. Friend will recognise that there are many smaller bodies and individuals with equally legitimate concerns that might not be quite as practised. I hope that he will take a sympathetic view of their position to enable them to make their concerns felt and evaluated by the Select Committee. I know that, to a degree, the terms of reference will be a matter for the Select Committee, but I hope that my right hon. Friend will repeat the assurance that was given earlier, that no restrictive views will be taken in that regard and that, as far as it lies in his power, he will give them ample opportunity to put in their petitions.
That said—and I hate to say this, because I know that my right hon. Friend is coining fresh to the problem, and I am sure that he will look at it with a sympathetic eye; indeed, his first contribution confirmed that he has already grasped our concerns—I have to say to him and to my hon. Friend the Minister of State that, even after the earlier debates, there are too many unresolved problems and questions that crucially affect the well-being of my constituents in Dover and east Kent, and not entirely encouraging answers can be found to those problems and questions in the Bill so far as I can see. I will, therefore, to register their concern and mine, be compelled to vote against the Bill at the conclusion of the debate.

Mr. John Silkin: I should like to add my personal congratulations to the Secretary of State. It occurred to me when listening to him that if he could make so reasonable and agreeable a speech in such a bad cause, he will make a very powerful opponent when in God's good time he has a cause which is worth defending.

Mr. Alfred Dubs: He will never get one.

Mr. Silkin: Give him time.
The Secretary of State finished his speech by disclosing to us a powerful and good concern for the rights of individuals. I think that he has taken immense personal trouble to ensure that, as he sees it, their needs are looked after and they get an opportunity to be heard.
The debate is not entirely about the rights of individuals. Of course the House must respect those rights. That is what we are here for. We are all constituency Members. However, the debate is also about a great principle—whether we should build a Channel tunnel. I pay tribute to the hon. Member for Canterbury (Mr. Crouch), who made that point very early in the morning when some of us may have begun to nod off. He put it correctly. It is not just about details; it is about principle.
Let us get rid of one myth straight away. As the House well knows, I have always been against British membership of the Common Market; but long before that I was against a Channel tunnel, and that is one of my consistent beliefs. The two are not necessarily connected. One can be in favour of the Channel tunnel and against the Common Market, and the other way round.
The question to which we have to devote our minds is not even so much whether it is desirable to have a Channel tunnel. It is the question, asked in the debate in February, which the Select Committee on Transport examined in its first report, the answer to which it then dodged. The Committee put it succinctly in paragraph 128 of its first report:
The one question which has persistently hung over the Committee's inquiry is 'Is there a need for a fixed link?
Nothing that the Secretary of State or any protagonist of the fixed link has ever said has shown us that there is a need. Of course, the Secretary of State and the Government have given what they believe to be reasonable justifications. As the right hon. and learned Member for Dover (Mr. Rees) has said, there are balances across the whole House. What we have heard are only justifications or excuses. Nowhere do they point to a need for a Channel tunnel.

Mr. Adley: If the right hon. Gentleman had been in the House in 1825 when the Stockton and Darlington railway was proposed, how would he have expected the Minister of the day, or whoever was handling the Bill, to explain the justification of that need, and how would he have voted?

Mr. Silkin: It is all rather hypothetical, but I believe that I would not have been in favour of it in 1825, nor would I have been in favour of it in 1882 when the House rightly chucked it out and told the London, Chatham and South Coast railway that it could go in the other direction.
The need for a Channel tunnel has never been expressed, but there have been justifications or excuses for it. The first is that it will speed up traffic. That has been said by the Secretary of State today and it has also been said by several hon. Members. But will it? I recommend hon. Members to read page 13 of the Channel Tunnel Group's digest, which says that the time required for the tunnel transit, if everything goes right—an assumption that has not been universally observable in the timetables of British Rail—will be 30 minutes. I have crossed the Channel by hovercraft in less than 30 minutes. The average time by hovercraft is 41 minutes.

Mr. Crouch: If the weather is right.

Mr. Silkin: If the hon. Gentleman wants to know about the weather, I shall come to that in a moment. Expenditure of £6 billion seems to be a lot to save 11 minutes of a holidaymaker's time.
Let us consider the time. Hon. Members should travel by hovercraft. The average loading time of a hovercraft for a car and its passengers is 10 minutes and the unloading time is five minutes. According to the CTG's own digest, the unloading time for the tunnel will be 15 minutes. It does not dare tell us what the loading time will be because that includes export clearance, passport control and all the rest. The CTG rightly does not give a figure for that.
Let us consider long-distance lorry drivers. The hovercraft is a great invention but it is not strong enough to take lorries. They have to go by ferry. The real calculation is not one hour 15 minutes spent crossing by ferry as against 30 minutes by tunnel. One must take into account the journey over the roads of Europe and the roads of Britain. That runs to several hours or many days. What saving are we talking about there?
The Secretary of State has been conned by his Department into believing that time is absolutely vital. But of course it is not. The time for the ferry crossing is very little when taken as a rest period for drivers that is probably not only deserved but necessary in the interests of safety. They probably need at least an hour and a quarter to rest between long road journeys. When one considers a lorry driver's total journey time, it does not count.
The Secretary of State by his speech struck me as being able to take these points well into account. Therefore, I beg him to examine the matter himself and not to rely on what he has been told, because it is absolute nonsense.

Mr. Speed: Do I follow the right hon. Gentleman's argument correctly? His argument about ferries and hovercraft relies on vehicles driving through Kent, through my constituency and the constituencies of my right hon. and hon. Friends. Is he ruling out in his argument journeys from city centre to city centre by rail?

Mr. Silkin: I do not know what city centres we are talking about. The brochure talks about London and Paris. I do not think that people would make that journey by tunnel. [HON. MEMBERS: "Why not?"] I do not think that more people would do it that way than would make the journey by air. However, I am not ruling it out.

Mr. Dubs: Of course they would.

Mr. Silkin: My hon. Friend is entitled to his opinion. I always let him have it. I beg the House to give him every courtesy and to let him say what he believes. It does not have to be what I believe. I have some experience.

Mr. Jim Lester: The right hon. Gentleman has talked about proving the need. As I understand it, close to his constituency a second Dartford tunnel is being considered because of the growth in traffic. Would he suggest that we should go back to crossing the Thames by ferry?

Mr. Silkin: No, I would not. A second Dartford tunnel has probably become essential. That is irrespective of a Channel tunnel. I shall deal with the Channel tunnel in this debate. I shall deal with the Dartford tunnel, if the hon. Gentleman wants me to, in any debate in which that is appropriate. No doubt the hon. Gentleman and I will be on the same side on that matter.
A few moments ago the hon. Member for Canterbury referred to the weather. Part of the argument for a tunnel is that there will be transport facilities 365 days a year. I have to admit that the ferries operate on only 364 days a year, because they do not cross the Channel on Christmas day. Let us assume that those who wrote the brochure forgot about that and we are talking about like and like. Having checked, I can say that there was not a single day last year, except Christmas day, when there were not ferries crossing the Channel, even though the weather may have been bad.

Mr. Crouch: What about delays?

Mr. Silkin: I shall come to the delays on British Rail in a moment. Let us talk about delays on this for a moment.

Mr. Crouch: The right hon. Gentleman should go to Dover and see for himself.

Mr. Silkin: If the hon. Gentleman wants to intervene, he should do me the courtesy of standing up.

Mr. Crouch: When the right hon. Gentleman makes a good point, I shall.

Mr. Silkin: Does the hon. Gentleman want to intervene?

Mr. Crouch: Of course I will. The right hon. Gentleman knows that I am happy to be on my feet to intervene. I did not want to interrupt his speech, but he was making such an obvious mistake that I wanted to put him right. The Channel ferries—not the hovercraft—are held up frequently when they have to wait outside Dover and Folkestone. I go to Dover on a Sunday just to enjoy looking at ships waiting to get into Dover harbour when it is too rough for them to get in straight away. I am very fond of the sea. I would prefer to cross the Channel by sea any day, but I do not like hanging about, and that is what one has to do on ferries.

Mr. Silkin: The hon. Gentleman has made a valid point, but it is not the point with which I was dealing. I was talking about the cancellation of crossings. I shall come to delays.
Apart from Christmas day the number of days in any year on which the hovercraft has been cancelled is four. If we are talking about cancellations, there is nothing in it.

Mr. Adley: What on earth is the right hon. Gentleman worrying about? The ferries will still run. The consumer will have an additional choice, and the taxpayer will not fund the cost of the tunnel. What on earth is the right hon. Gentleman concerned about?

Mr. Silkin: I was wrong to give way. If the hon. Gentleman will be patient, I propose to deal with all the points that he has been making.
The next matter that the Secretary of State and those who are in favour of the tunnel raise is employment. They do it rather diffidently, because everybody knows that there will be unemployment in parts of Kent. They talk about a balance of various additional jobs that will come against the loss of jobs in the immediate areas. Nobody really knows the figures, but quite frankly, the estimate for job creation is not worth substantive discussion. It is hypothetical. Indeed, we could take any figure we wanted. The only figures that stand up are the Channel Tunnel

Group's estimates of increases in jobs—under 4,000 in 1993 and under 6,000 by the year 2003. The ferries and ports submission shows a loss of 12,000 jobs in the United Kingdom generally, with another 4,000 in east Kent. That gives a net loss of 10,000 jobs. That is the only substantial evidence.
The Secretary of State, in a powerful part of his speech, made a point about the economy. It is obvious that he passionately believes it, and I pay tribute to him for that. In effect, he was saying that the project would produce many benefits, and all with little or no public expenditure. That is not so. Even the hon. Member for Christchurch (Mr. Adley) and other Conservative Members have encouraged the right hon. Gentleman to accept that there will need to be some public expenditure. At the least, improvements to the motorways will cost 100 million and to the railways £400 million, which is £500 million of public expenditure. In addition, the Government will have to bail out a bankrupt Channel Tunnel Group—that will certainly be the case—and the figures will then be astronomical.
Why do we not learn from experience? The Seikan tunnel between Honshu and Hokkaido was held to be a great, exciting engineering adventure when it was first constructed, yet 20 years later the final costs are a great deal more than the original budget. Japan feels regret only that the tunnel was ever contemplated.

Sir Julian Ridsdale: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that there is another tunnel in Japan, between Kynshu and Honshu? It is a road tunnel, and it pays.

Mr. Silkin: Yes, but I was dealing with something commensurate with the proposed Channel tunnel project. The hon. Gentleman and I are probably the only two Japanese-speaking Members of Parliament, so at least we can agree about that. The Honshu to Hokkaido tunnel is commensurate, almost to the inch, with the proposed Chunnel tunnel.
The Government are prepared to spend £500 million on the Channel tunnel. Would it not be better to spend that money — and I would spend much more — on modernising and cheapening the whole of our rail system? That would make some of the environmental improvements about which the Secretary of State rightly spoke. He mentioned the large number of lorries that congregate along the roads of Kent. Such a scheme would do a great deal to improve the employment position and bring down the cost of transport.
There is one aspect of the proposed project to which no one on the Government Front Bench dares give weight—security. A narrow tunnel, 30 miles in length, with cars, motorists and families all travelling together, will be an obvious security target. If we assume that the Channel Tunnel Group's timing is anywhere near accurate, there could be as many as six trains in the tunnel at any one time. The group refers to trains running every 10 minutes, and the journey lasting 30 minutes. Whether by a terrorist bomb or by a mechanical defect, if one of those trains breaks down there will be a danger to life not only through bombing or fire, but from panic. The House may recall that a couple of months ago a London underground train broke down and was stuck for two hours in a tunnel. There was no great danger and the train was quite near a platform, but there was panic.
I spoke earlier about delays in the rail system. We all know that there can be breakdowns. A breakdown in the


tunnel is not something that I would wish to experience. Let us consider the average holiday family on their way to France: a saloon car with husband and wife in the front and the average 2·2 children in the back——

Mr. Crouch: And one in the boot.

Mr. Silkin: No, none in the boot. It is an average family.
They are taking auntie Maggie with them, and it is well known that auntie Maggie tends to become a little frustrated when she does not get her own way. If that car was stuck in the middle of the tunnel, the panic would be colossal. I do not think that the House really understands that. If there is also the danger of fire, the position would be very difficult.
Of course, fire or other hazards can occur on a ferry—there was a sad incident with a hovercraft a few months ago—but nothing could be as bad as such a hazard in the tunnel. That is a fundamental objection to the scheme. Even if the Secretary of State does not agree with me on that, he must not ignore it because it is a terrifying possibility. It is 30 miles of danger.
If the tunnel is meant to achieve anything, it is to cut down the number of ships and seafarers crossing the Channel. It is no use pretending, as the right hon. and learned Member for Dover did—although I accept that he did so in all sincerity—that the ferries will remain and that there will be competition between them and the tunnel. I do not believe that, and neither do they. The effect of building the tunnel will be to destroy the ferries because the costs of crossing the Channel will he brought down to a level with which the ferries cannot compete. We must remember that a great deal of money is required to modernise the ferries, but where will they obtain it? We are talking about the death knell for the ferries. I am enormously worried about that, not least because of the effect on the future of our country and its defence.
During the past few years there has been a monumental decline in ships, shipbuilding and, even worse, the maritime capabilities of Britain's defence. Before the debate I looked at the Defence White Paper, and paragraph 443 is significant. It states:
Because the United Kingdom's merchant fleet is of great importance for defence needs, the scale of its recent decline has caused some concern. There are, however, still sufficient ships of most of the particular type that we need to enable us to meet our foreseen defence requirements for cross-Channel reinforcement and direct support of Royal Navy operations.
We can see the rusting ships in every port in Britain; That is the truth about the ships. What about the men who man them? Without them, there will not be a Navy. Anyone who has served in the Navy — as the hon. Member for Ashford (Mr. Speed) and many other other hon. Members know well—knows that we rely upon the Merchant Navy in times of war and trouble, not just for manning support ships but for the Navy itself.
I want the House to be aware of the figures. The latest figures that are available for the number of registered United Kingdom seafarers show that there were 31,434 officers in 1979. That figure has fallen to 13,371. In 1979 there were 28,942 ratings and that figure has now declined to 17,680. There were 6,318 cadets and that figure as fallen to 1,016. That figure represents the future generation of seafarers.
The strongest of my objections, which lies at the root of the issue, is what will happen to our maritime experience and skill. We are an island country. Our past was safeguarded and maintained and we have prospered because our country is girded by the sea and our seafarers were able to protect it. From the figures that I have quoted, and from the Government's attitude, it would appear that the defence of our country does not matter.
I fear that we may be heading for a catastrophe. I do not want to see that happen. I began by saying that a question of principle was involved. I firmly believe that. I hope that the House will reject the Bill.

Sir Julian Ridsdale: I congratulate my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Transport on his excellent speech. He referred to opportunities. I was reminded of the instructions of a ski instructor who said that in skiing there is no security, only opportunity. We have heard two points of view in the debate, and I also congratulate the right hon. Member for Lewisham, Deptford (Mr. Silkin) on his interesting speech against the Channel tunnel. I give qualified support to the tunnel but I am concerned about the security aspects of the project and the effect it will have not only on the ferries, but on the oceangoing shipping as well.
Viewed from the east coast, the main effect of the Channel tunnel will on the sea trade in the range from Ramsgate to Newhaven and from Dunkirk to Dieppe. I have considerable sympathy with the fears of my hon. Friends who represent Kent constituencies and those who represent constituencies on the south coast over the employment effects which the project is bound to have in their constituencies. If the project was being carried out in my constituency, I could understand their opposition and the views of my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Dover (Mr. Rees) and those of other Kent Members.
I am naturally also concerned for the future of the privatised Sealink company, a subsidiary of Sea Containers. I applaud that company's action and confidence in pressing ahead with the investment at Bathside bay in Harwich. I was anxious to have the support of the House for my Harwich Parkstone Quay Bill this week to build new quays to expand the sea container traffic to 100,000 sea containers a year. I thank my hon. Friends and Opposition Members for their support for that venture by Sea Containers.
To justify that venture we will need the support of two or three major deep-sea operators. Clearly the acid test will be whether they think such facilites are still justified. I am glad to say that at present the noises are encouraging. That may encourage the right hon. Member for Deptford, who was concerned about the falling numbers of our seafaring people. All hon. Members must be concerned about that.
Is it true that the French Ministry of Transport has announced recently that it intends to build a multi-million franc investment in deep-sea container facilities at Le Havre and improvements in the rail link between Le Havre and Calais? For some time I have been concerned about the subsidies being paid to many continental ports. The building of the tunnel naturally increases the problem for our own ports. Was that point raised in the negotiations?
In October I was told that the then Secretary of State for Transport had taken up the matter with Commissioner Sutherlans, urging him to investigate a number of specific


cases. I am pressing for complete transparency of financial relations between the Community ports and public authorities. What is the present position on that?
Clearly, before the Channel tunnel is built, we must clarify these matters as soon as possible because the range of state and municipal aid to ports in the Community and in France is a potential distortion of competition to United Kingdom interests and will have special effects on sea container traffic and on shipping.
Will the draft concession agreement in its present form be acceptable to equity investors and bank lenders? It is claimed that the agreement contains a host of clauses which are completely uncommercial. Is it correct that the Government are giving complete freedom to change the fiscal legislation without compensation, with no mortgages being permitted to lenders?
Is it true that France is unwilling to stop its road permit system now in force, which limits the number of freight vehicles which can transit the country? Does the draft concession agreement provide that 50 per cent. of profits of the fixed link will be taxable in France? At present approximately 80 per cent. of the profits for short sea Channel traffic are taxable in the United Kingdom. Would a 50:50 arrangement like this lead to the transfer of hundreds of millions of pounds of British tax revenue to the French?
I have considerable doubts about what is happening. Can the Minister tell me what help has been given from the European Community to the Haven ports? Could road facilities be improved at Harwich and Parkston at the same time as progress is being made on the roads to the tunnel? Have we in the United Kingdom had similar grants to our ports as the French have had from the Community?
All these matters are connected with the downturn in the fortunes of our merchant fleet, so eloquently alluded to by the right hon. Member for Deptford. The merchant fleet is vital strategically to our defence, not only across the Channel. We must remember that one of the first requirements of our defence is the reinforcement to Norway. Recently the Danish ferries, not the British, helped to reinforce in the last NATO exercise.
I will support Second Reading but with considerable reservations. I want to hear the answers to the questions that I have asked because I still have doubts on the matter. I hope that the Government will have more frank discussions with the country's port and shipping operators and those on the east coast to include the taxation position of flags of convenience. We are a shipping nation. No matter how enthusiastic we may be about rail users when discussing the Bill, we must remember the figures that we have heard about our merchant shipping fleet and our defence requirements.
All these are considerable reservations and anyone considering the future must bear them in mind. It would be a bitter blow if we were to lose our ferries and our sea container traffic. That is why I am concerned about the subsidies being given to Le Havre and the road links with Calais. I can foresee a time when the ferries may disappear. However, even more serious, what will happen to the sea container traffic? The French are making a dead set for that at the moment, and we must think very seriously about the implications for our merchant shipping fleet.
I welcome the fact that the House has given support for the east coast ports, particularly for the sea container traffic, but I do not think that, just because that support has

been given, there will not be considerable problems for the sea container trade. They are now privatised and will have to face any losses on their own. It will be tragic if, because of the Channel tunnel, we lose not only the ferries but the sea container trade to France, with all the consequences that that may have for our merchant shipping.
Therefore, I ask my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State to initiate discussions at a high level to consider those questions carefully. Like the right hon. Member for Deptford, I feel strongly about the future implications to our shipping and our seafaring people, and that is why I give this Bill qualified support at this stage.

Mr. Stephen Ross: The hon. Member for Harwich (Sir J. Ridsdale) made some pertinent points about subsidies on the Continent, but I think that he will agree that they do not apply just to the construction of the Channel tunnel. Many hon. Members have suspicions about subsidies in many other areas which have enabled our competitors on the Continent to obtain contracts. They have often been surprising, given the tightness of the bids submitted by British firms. I hope that those points will be followed up. I have fed the Minister with some information which appeared in a French newspaper about Le Havre.
I have served in the Navy and I share the hon. Gentleman's views on the rundown of our maritime forces, but I think that he will agree that it is not the Channel tunnel that is causing that. It has been going on for a considerable time. A different attitude to taxation of our shipping companies will be needed if we are to retain a merchant shipping fleet at all.
I add my congratulations to those already offered tc the Secretary of State. I commiserate with him for having to sit here and listen to yet another speech. However, I remain an unrepentant supporter of the Channel tunnel and I hope to live long enough to travel through it. My alliance colleagues will be voting for the Second Reading of the Bill tonight just as we have supported it throughout as can be seen from the record. I am well aware that the hon. and learned Member for Folkestone and Hythe (Mr. Howard) has been quoting some of my words. If he is honest he will accept that I have been rather helpful to him. I hope that he will accept that I have stood my ground——

Mr. Crouch: Until the hon. Gentleman's party's candidates in Kent objected.

Mr. Ross: The hon. Gentleman should tell that to the Conservative candidate in the Isle of Wight. It is tit for tat. Fair's fair. They are representing their constituents just as the hon. Gentleman is representing his. The right hon. and learned Member for Dover (Mr. Rees) certainly represented his.
Support for the Channel tunnel does not mean that people's rights can be bulldozed. As I have made clear before, ample time must be provided for all those adversely affected who wish to be heard either by the Select Committee of the House of Commons or, later, by the Lords to submit their petitions. Hence our amendments which will be discussed later tonight.
The hon. Member for Thanet, South (Mr. Aitken) quoted from the Select Committee's report on Tuesday. As a member of that Select Committee I signed the report. We said:
The Committee recommends that this precedent"—


that of 1974—
be followed, that the fullest possible latitude again be allowed to petitioners and that all those whose petitions conform to the basic requirement of relevancy be allowed to be heard.
I repeat that now because it is important.
Compensation where rightly due must be generous, and every effort should be made to limit the damage to the environment. Clause 8 has much to say on that. The Secretary of State referred to it and I was glad to hear what he had to say.
A decision not to hold the usual full-scale public inquiry is perfectly understandable in view of recent experiences, but that must mean that the Select Committee's duty is to give objectors every opportunity to be heard. I repeat that I hope that it will agree to take evidence in Kent rather than stay in the confines of the Palace of Westminster all the time. If we can have some influence on that it will be helpful.

Mr. Moore: Let me make it clear that that will be up to the Committee, but the character of the motion permits that.

Mr. Ross: I accept that that is up to the Chairman of the Committee, but I am glad that the Secretary of State agrees with that view.
Let me also take the opportunity to clarify my attitude to the short 20-day inquiry which I put forward for consideration before Christmas to the Select Committee on Transport and which I also mentioned in the House before Christmas. That had merit before the decision on the type of fixed link was made. But, as the recent Dounreay inquiry has revealed, cutting hearings short leaves dissatisfied too many whose views are not heard. I have already made that point and I repeat it now.
I am in favour of this project because it is an exciting challenge and, with inflation under control, the time is right. We must at least give the Government credit for that. I regret that was not the case in 1974. Secondly, it helps to move Britain into the 21st century. I fully support the Secretary of State on that. Nearly 60 per cent. of our exports are now said to be going to Europe. Anything that can speed up their delivery and, I hope, cut costs, must surely be right. It also gives our railway system a great opportunity to take some of the traffic off our already overcrowded roads. If this Government are not prepared to tackle congestion the next will surely be obliged to do so. One has only to look at the photograph of the M25 in The Times the other day and the correspondence that it evoked. Somebody wrote that there are 25,000 Austin motor cars unsold in Longbridge — thank God! That is understandable.
I should have preferred a rail-only tunnel. I think that the hon. Member for Christchurch (Mr. Adley) was wrong: there was not to be a rail-only tunnel in 1974. It surely did include a shuttle. Like the late Anthony Crosland, I must be realistic. Pressure on the public purse for any future Administration would probably mean that the project would have to be put on to the back burner when priorities came to be made, and that would be a mistake, one sees that. If one reads the appropriate volume of Hansard in 1974 Anthony Crosland said that he had to accept the shuttle, although previously he had been in favour of a rail-only tunnel. I put the actual question to him. It becomes even more of a necessity when private

money is being used because the public purse just could not run to it without the extra revenue. If my party were to consider our priorities when we came to power, we would almost certainly have to take the same view. However, that does not mean the demise of all our ferry routes to the Continent.
I have been got at in the Isle of Wight because many seafarers live there who operate ships out of Portsmouth. At the moment the ferry traffic to France from Portsmouth is increasing. A new line is coming in within the next week or two. I believe that competition will be good. Sometimes I wish that we could build a tunnel to the Isle of Wight. My constituents would say that that is the most expensive crossing in the world. I do not think that that is true but it costs between £30 and £40 to take a medium sized car and a couple of children across, and there is no real competition.
I take the point that the hon. Member for Canterbury (Mr. Crouch) made in an intervention earlier. Competition is desirable. But ferries will run from places such as Portsmouth, Plymouth and up the east coast because people will not want to drive all the way round to Dover.

Mr. Silkin: I notice that the hon. Gentleman said that they will run from Portsmouth. I do not agree, but he is automatically killing Dover by his speech.

Mr. Ross: I am not killing Dover. Obviously competition will be the greatest for Dover and Folkestone. I hope that Dover will survive, but it will have to be competitive. I do not think that it will necessarily lose out totally, but, yes, let us be open about it, Dover will have a real problem.
The chance of being able to board a train at Waterloo and be in the centre of Paris in three hours 15 minutes or in Brussels in two hours 55 minutes is one that most of us would jump at. I was surprised at the views of the right hon. Gentleman on that. It would be wonderful to avoid the uncomfortable ride out on the Underground to Heathrow, the delays before takeoff, the cramped seat with the tray of food that one has difficulty eating and the likelihood of someone knocking your glass over, more delays at customs and immigration and then another 30 or 40 minutes to get into the centre of Paris or Brussels. All that hardly puts anyone in a good mood for the task ahead, and many thousands do such trips every week, if not every day.
In its latest handout, British Rail predicts over 20 million passenger journeys per annum by the year 2003 and 11·6 million tonnes of freight per annum on the railway. It anticipates running 20 freight trains daily in each direction and that should mean 1,500 fewer 38-tonne lorries on our roads. I am sure that it will not be quoted by a Labour spokesman in this debate, although it may be by the hon. Member for Battersea (Mr. Dubs), but in a document signed by three or four of the leaders of the rail unions issued to their members only a day or two ago, of which I happen to have a copy, they said:
Those against the Channel Tunnel have said it will be bad for the Regions, for jobs and have maintained that the money could have been better used for social infrastructure.
The right hon. Member for Lewisham, Deptford (Mr. Silkin) took that line.
The document went on to say:
Whether we like it or not, the finance for the project is being raised in the international markets. It is venture capital, much of it from abroad, and is simply not available for re-direction by any


Government to projects which it might consider socially more useful. Set against the real job benefits of the project this argument is irrelevant and misleading.
Many more jobs stand to be gained than will be lost by the Channel Tunnel project. There has been no serious challenge to the research findings that the long-term effect of the Channel Tunnel on Kent Coast employment will be broadly neutral. Some jobs will undoubtedly be affected by the new investment. They always are. But it is part of the challenge to the Labour Movement in our campaign for jobs not only to defend existing jobs but to create new ones. There is massive potential for jobs in construction and in associated supply industries, as is shown in the attached appendix. As the party which stands above all for infrastructure investment. Labour must be committed to the job creating potential of this project.
Many of the job opportunities are in the Regions, in our hard pressed traditional heavy industries — iron, steel and heavy engineering. Already, companies in the North East and Strathclyde are tendering for the tunnelling equipment. Increasingly, companies and workforces up and down the country will be reflecting in their plans and expectations the contracts that will be flowing through from the Tunnel work. Predominantly, these jobs will be in Labour seats or high on Labour's target list. There can be no doubt that in the next few years the Regions will be major beneficiaries of the construction phase of the Tunnel. Once the Tunnel is in operation, the new speed of connections to continental destinations will place firms in the Regions on a more equal competitive footing with firms nearer to the South Coast.
That is signed by Jimmy Knapp, Ray Buckton, Albert Williams and Bert Lyons. I could not have put it better myself.
The hon. Member for Derbyshire, South (Mrs. Currie) has gone but I visited British Rail Engineering Ltd. in Derby this morning. In the carriage works there were coaches for Gabon and for the Congo, former French African countries. We have beaten the French at building rail carriages. They may have to put the bogies on, but the carriages are being built in Britain and being exported to former French African countries. I do not doubt that we can win if we can compete on equal terms with the French.
In clause 1(7)(d) of the Bill it would appear that Ashford is to he the base for customs and other controls on the English side of the channel. I would hope that for rail passengers arrangements can be devised so that customs men can operate on the train during the journey as it makes so much more sense and would avoid the necessity to detain or delay people. It should be the same on the ferries——

Mr. Gale: Would the hon. Gentleman extend that argument to the cross-Channel ferry so that it can compete on equal terms?

Mr. Ross: I accept the point that was made earlier. I realise that there are differences because it is a sea crossing, but one can go from Brussels to Paris these days without having to worry about customs. Surely the time must be coming when we can drop some of the restrictions placed upon us when we travel within the Community.
Clause 43 amends the Coast Protection Act 1949 and the removal of materials during the excavation. I think that it has already been said by the Secretary of State, but I assume that agreement will definitely be reached with Kent county council as to the extent and disposal of the material before works begin.
I hope that the Bill will make good progress but that every care will be taken to ensure that the views and representations of those adversely affected are fully taken into account and, wherever possible, without ruining the project, adjustments recommended.

Mr. Roger Gale: I oppose the Second Reading of the Bill. I should like to quote briefly from a document prepared by the Kent county council, "The Channel Tunnel and the Future for Kent". The key question in the document posed by Kent county council is:
Can Parliament ensure that national objectives are secured without Kent, the front line county, paying an unacceptable economic and environmental price?
Referring to the economic consequences of a chunnel for Kent, the document says:
Once the construction phase is completed it is expected that jobs generated by the operation of the Tunnel will not replace job losses at Kent's ferry ports. East Kent is already struggling with serious economic problems and the ferry business represents one of the thriving industries in this depressed area of the County.
County and district authorities have warned the Government that, even allowing for Fixed-Link work, East Kent can expect a net loss of jobs over the next 10–15 years unless positive measures are taken to stimulate growth. How the ferries respond to the challenge will be critical … East Kent needs the earliest possible demonstration of real commitment to its economic future. Left solely to market forces, the benefits could be more likely to focus on West Kent with its easy access to London, the M25 and the airports or"—
this is the crucial point—
go to Northern France.
In conclusion, the document says:
Across the Channel vast sums (of the order of £900 are being provided to ensure that the French gain a full share of benefits the tunnel will bring. It would be deplorable if we in Britain failed to make an imaginative investment in the future, and lost out as a result.
That is the Kent county council's view in its own discussion document.
In the debate on 10 February of this year I drew the attention of the Minister of State to a publication called "Lien Fixe Transmanche" which was published by the regional council for Nord-Pas de Calais on the occasion of the Prime Minister's visit to Lille, on 20 January 1986. That document outlines in great detail exactly what the French Government are doing for Nord-Pas de Calais and how their money will be spent to ensure that jobs created by a tunnel go not to England, Scotland, Wales, Northern Ireland, or Kent, but to Nord-Pas de Calais.
The Kent county council-sponsored economic development board also published an assessment of the incentives in the Nord-Pas de Calais region of France. In a news release Kent county council said:
We want a Government commitment to give development incentives in order to compete on equal terms with the French. The Region Nord-Pas de Calais enjoys substantial national and European assistance and Kent will be at a disadvantage unless we can offer similar incentives.
Canterbury city council, writing to the Government, said:
The Council is convinced that such a link will have seriously adverse effects upon the Canterbury District in particular and upon the whole of North East Kent in general, and that although the short-term effect, during construction, may produce benefits through increased employment, the long term does not bode well for the area mentioned … The injection of massive financial support for the infrastructure for the North East Kent area is absolutely essential to minimise the effect of the link, as is huge capital investment particularly for the coastal areas of Whitstable, Herne Bay and the Thanet towns.
As I have said, in the debate on 10 February, I drew the attention of the Minister of State to that situation. In reply, he said:
He mentioned, as did other hon. Members, a document produced by the French Government about their intended investment in the Pas de Calais. He asked whether we could have a similar document in the United Kingdom. We have that in the


White Paper, the statements that have been made in the House, the questions that have been answered and the speeches that have been made in the debates. Drawing all those matters together in one document might be helpful to hon. Members. I will consider that point carefully." —[Official Report, 10 February 1986; Vol. 91, c. 726.]
So far, no equivalent document has been produced. I suggest that the reason for that is that no policy exists in this country as exists with French Government support for the region of Nord-Pas de Calais.
In the debate on Tuesday 3 June the Minister of State, in reply to criticisms by my hon. Friend the Member for Thanet, South (Mr. Aitken) and myself about the undue haste with which the Government were pursuing their objectives, said:
What about the landowners in the area who would like the uncertainty to be cleared up? What about the unemployed who would like the order to go to engineering industries—indeed, to Thanet? Some of the large number of unemployed people in that area would like these jobs to go to that area."—[Official Report, 3 June 1986; Vol. 98, c. 868.]
That was widely quoted on national radio and television. I do not think that either my hon. Friend the Member for Thanet, South or I would quarrel with the need for jobs in an area with 27 per cent. male unemployment—the highest unemployment of any area not in receipt of aid from assisted area status or regional aid.
My hon. Friend the Member for Thanet, South will in due course undoubtedly make the case for the port of Ramsgate. I and my constituents believe that the economic regeneration of north-east Kent is dependent almost entirely upon the success of the port of Ramsgate, and the development of that port depends in its turn very largely on the road system in north-east Kent. As my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Dover (Mr. Rees) said, if Ramsgate is to compete on equal terms with the Channel tunnel—I know of no reason why it should be asked to do otherwise—then, as the hon. Member for Isle of Wight (Mr. Ross) said, the ports of Dover, Folkestone, and Ramsgate and those on the rest of the south coast must have the advantage of the same customs system as that in the fixed link. At the moment, as far as I can see, there are no proposals to offer those advantages to the cross-Channel ferries.
If the ports are to compete on equal terms, they must be subject to the same safety regulations as will apply to a fixed link and to rail traffic. As far as we can see, it is considered in order to load traffic on to trains, to secure that traffic by no means other than a handbrake and to allow people to travel in cars while on trains. In short, it is in order to break all the regulations that are currently applied to the same kind of vehicles travelling on ferries.
When one drives on to one of the Sally Line ferries at Ramsgate, the vehicles at the front and rear of the line are secured by hawsers. One is then required to leave the transport, there is no opportunity for customs clearance during the journey and one rejoins the transport at the end of the journey. I would be delighted if my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State could correct me if I am wrong in my understanding of the situation.
To compete on equal terms, the port at Ramsgate must have the same kind of road access that is proposed for the Channel tunnel. In east Kent, we have been fighting for the improvement of the Thanet way for many years. My hon. Friend the Member for Canterbury (Mr. Couch), when he represented a part of my constituency before it

was rejigged in 1983, took up that point on his election to the House. Proposals for the improvement of the Thanet way were accepted by Kent county council in the late 1960s. The proposals were for
improving Thanet Way to dual carriageway standard with grade separated junctions … and land for the scheme has been reserved since that time.
On my election to the House I approached my hon. Friend the Member for Wallasey (Mrs. Chalker), who at that time had responsibility at the Department of Transport for roads, and I raised again the subject of the dualling of the Thanet way. In the Lloyd's Ports Bulletin International for November 1985, the managing director of the Sally Line is quoted as saying:
We have fought long and hard to get permission to build an access road that will take traffic away from the middle of Ramsgate.
Work could start next year and we could see it completed by 1988. But what now worries me is that if the decision is given to go ahead with the tunnel the construction work will take precedence over schemes like ours.
The tunnel will then serve no other purpose than to take away funds allocated to other road projects.
It is clear that Mr. Kingshott's fears were well founded.
In January, the then leader of Thanet district council wrote to the leader of the county council, Mr. Tony Hart, saying:
We are naturally apprehensive about the problems which will face Thanet in the event of the Fixed Link being constructed, … The unanimous view of the Thanet representatives was that some additional expenditure on infrastructure would help to make Thanet more attractive to new industry and also for tourism. We therefore asked for his assistance in upgrading the A299—the notorious Thanet Way. Mr. Ridley, of course, pointed out that this road is not his responsibility, as it is a County road. He indicated, however, that he would be sympathetic with our needs and would be willing for the road to be trunked if the County Council so indicated. Having regard to the problems of the County Highways budget (and all other budgets) this seemed a helpful suggestion.
The Kent economic development board, on 20 January 1986, issued a news release saying:
it is in the Board's view essential that the exceptional incentives being offered by the French Government for investment in the Nord-Pas de Calais region be recognised by the British Government and matched by some similar forms of support and incentive for investment in North East Kent. This area, which already suffers high unemployment levels (reaching 27 per cent. male unemployment in the Thanet area of Kent at present) could otherwise suffer a serious investment blight which cannot adequately be offset by the locational advantages from which Mid and North West Kent should ultimately gain.
It is clear that Thanet and the north-east area of Kent is suffering from investment blight.
The efforts of my hon. Friend the Member for Thanet, South and myself are made so much more difficult because at present, with no link road into Thanet and no suitable link road planned from Thanet to the Channel tunnel, investors regard the Channel tunnel and its approach road as the north-east Kent bypass. That will continue to be the case unless and until the road infrastructure is improved.
In his evidence to the Select Committee on Transport, the planning officer for Kent county council, Mr. Deakin, said:
Although there will be job generation on the London fringe, nevertheless it remains the fact that Dover, Thanet and Folkestone will be behind the door as one comes out of the tunnel. We are anxious to see that a genuine assessment is made of what has to be done in that part of the world to achieve compensating economic growth.
The county surveyor, in a more recent publication of minutes to the Kent county council highways and public transport sub-committee, said—I apologise to the House


for quoting this in some detail but it is highly relevant—that virtually no progress has been made, in spite of my representations and those of the Thanet district council, the Canterbury city council and my hon. Friend the Member for Thanet, South to all the Ministers involved and to the county council. The county surveyor says:
At the meeting of this Sub-Committee on the 11 February 1986, Members considered my report on the Department of Transport's request that the County Council give its formal view on the possibility of the A299 Thanet Way becoming a trunk road. Members resolved (Minute paragraph 356):
That the County Surveyor's report be noted;
that the Department of Transport be informed that the Council wishes to see major improvements to the A299/A253 route to Ramsgate at the earliest opportunity, comprising a dual carriageway along the A299 and realignment of the A253 to avoid the existing problem areas;
that the Department be invited to give a firm undertaking to complete these works within a reasonable timescale of say, 7 years"—
in other words, before the Channel tunnel project can be completed—
and on that basis, the Council would welcome an initiative to trunk this route;
that the Department also be asked to discuss these arguments with the Council to establish the priority of improvements to Thanet Way and access to Ramsgate and that the issue of trunking the Thanet Way be reconsidered when such discussions have been concluded; and
that Thanet District Council, Swale Borough Council and Canterbury City Council be informed of the County Council's views in this matter and sent copies of the County Surveyor's report together with all of the appropriate Kent M.Ps.
The county surveyor wrote to the director of transport at the Department of Transport's south-east regional office informing him of the resolution in these terms:
the Minister had met Members of Parliament representing the Thanet constituencies and informed them that trunking the Thanet Way and A253 would not attract a high priority for improvement, particularly dualling.
He went on:
The Director has written to me stating 'The Secretary of State decided that Thanet Way should remain a local road as improvement schemes were unlikely to attract high priority in the trunk road programme'. He stated that he would look sympathetically at schemes proposed for Transport Supplementary Grant in the Transport Policies and Programme.
The surveyor concluded:
I made it quite clear that, with current levels of TSG and capital allocation, dualling of the Thanet Way was included in the County's draft Transport Plan for a start in post year 2000. It could only achieve early implementation if the County Council were to receive additional funds from the D.Tp, over and above the level that would otherwise be realised.
There is no indication as yet that funding for that road, over and above the existing grant available to the county council, to improve the Thanet way is likely to be forthcoming. Mr. Michael Odling, the chairman of the development, planning and transportation committee, in a letter to one of my constituents dated 3 June, said:
The Mitchell Committee on the Channel tunnel has at the instigation of Kent county council commissioned a joint impact study. This is intended to identify the economic problem but also the economic opportunities which can be generated particularly in East Kent. Consideration of the enhancement of the Thanet way is part of that very study. The question of whether or not the Thanet way should be trunked is still undecided. We have been quite willing for the Department of Transport to trunk the road, but only on the clear understanding that much upgrading would take place as a matter of urgency.
Last year. Kent county council authorised the building of a single-lane footbridge to join Whitstable with a new hypermarket development on the other side of the Thanet way. It is quite clear from that action alone that there are no plans either with Kent county council or with the

Department of Transport to give the port of Ramsgate a lifeline that it needs and an opportunity to compete.. on equal terms, with the Channel tunnel. The most recent communication that I have received from my right hon. Friend the new Secretary of State for Transport, whose presence in the Chamber I welcome, shows that he is prepared to look further at the issue of the Thanet way.
I should like to be able to take a more positive approach to the Channel tunnel. I can see, in the right circumstances, some economic advantages for my constituents in the construction of a fixed link, but only when undertakings have been given that the Department of Transport will wholeheartedly support and, if necessary, fund the dualling of the road, which the port of Ramsgate needs to survive, and which the Isle of Thanet needs to develop economically. If that undertaking is given, the project—I say this quite unequivocally—will have my wholehearted support. Unless that undertaking is given, the Channel tunnel project will continue to have, as regrettably it has had to have up to now, not only the opposition of my constituents but the wholehearted opposition of myself.

Mr. Alfred Dubs: The hon. Member for Thanet, North (Mr. Gale) will forgive me if I do not follow him down the paths of the issues which affect his constituency and the neighbouring area. I speak as someone who regrets that we are in the Common Market. I wish that we had never joined it. However, it does not necessarily follow that one has to be an out-and-out opponent of the Channel tunnel project. I judge the proposal, as I have judged others, in three ways: first, its effect on jobs; secondly, its effect on public transport and British Rail; and, thirdly, its effect on the environment. Those are some of the criteria by which I judge the Bill, although there are others which I shall develop later.
What effect will the proposal have on jobs? The Labour party has long supported investment in the infrastructure as a way of providing more jobs and tackling the appallingly high level of unemployment. I take comfort and strength from the views expressed by a number of trade union leaders connected with the rail and construction industries who have talked about the benefit of jobs from the development. I appreciate that it has not been as fully worked out as I would wish. To that extent, I agree with my right hon. Friend the Member for Lewisham, Deptford (Mr. Silkin). I should have liked to see a tougher analysis of the effect on employment. Nevertheless, I am satisfied that overall, in terms of both the construction and the ruining of the Channel tunnel, there will be a beneficial effect on employment, especially in the construction industry.
What effect will the proposal have on public transport? I have long believed that as a country we have been entirely wrong to turn our backs on the development of British Rail. We made a major mistake in shifting passenger and freight movement from the railways on to the roads. That policy was damaging. We are not yet able to assess the full price that we must pay for the cuts in rail services that have taken place over the past 20 or 30 years. I fear that British Rail's future is bleak unless, as a country, we make a determined effort to do something about getting more goods carried by British Rail.
I see the development as a shot in the arm and a possible salvation for British Rail freight services. If we decide not


to have a Channel tunnel, I fear that we will be faced with further Beeching-type cuts in British Rail, and freight will move almost entirely to the roads. British Rail will be left with a few inter-city services and a few commuter services, especially in the London area. I do not want to see that happen. I believe that in the next century we shall regret the rail closures that have already taken place. I certainly do not want to see any more. I should like to see more freight moved off the roads and on to the railways.
What effect will the proposal have on the environment? I appreciate that in certain parts of Kent there will be environmental disadvantages in areas where work is carried out and where the tunnel comes out. I think, and hope, that that geographical impact will be limited. If the result of developing the Channel tunnel is that there will be a movement from the roads on to the railways, surely there will be major environmental advantages throughout the country, which I would welcome.
Who will use the tunnel? I think that some hon. Members were somewhat negative or pessimistic in referring to the type of traffic that the tunnel will attract. I shall deal with the issues under three headings, not necessarily in order of importance. The issues which have been raised concern air passengers, motor cars and freight.
Dealing with air passengers, I believe, in contrast to my right hon. Friend, that the attractions of a shorter journey from city centre to city centre mean that many people will no longer fly on the London-Paris and London-Brussels routes. The benefits will go further afield in terms of an incentive to use the railways, if there are quick and efficient services from city centre to city centre. In winter at any rate, the hazards of having to wait at Heathrow airport for fog to clear, ice to thaw and so on. with similar hazards at the other end, mean that it is more attractive to undertake a sensible journey during which one can sit the whole time and not have the dislocation of going to Heathrow airport on the tube, getting out and waiting, getting on to a plane, getting out and having the same process at the other end. Even if the journey, city centre to city centre, was a little longer, many people would prefer to use that path.

Sir Anthony Meyer: I am listening to the hon. Gentleman's remarks with great interest. Is he aware that his argument applies well within France. where the introduction of extremely high speed trains has had a dramatic effect in switching traffic from the air to the train?

Mr. Dubs: Yes. That presupposes, of course, that British Rail moves to the level of efficiency of some parts of the French railway system. I hope that a by-product of the tunnel project will be that British Rail will take note and do something to improve its services.

Mr. Silkin: Is it not a fact that the Channel Tunnel Group talks about a maximum speed of 93 mph between London and the coast as against 169 mph for the TGV to Lyons?

Mr. Dubs: I should like to see British Rail develop higher speed trains, but 93 mph from London to the Channel is not bad to be going on with, and will certainly be an improvement on many of the present services. I take note of the fact that on the other side of the Channel the

French have developed a highly efficient rail system, one of the advantages of which is that to which the hon. Member for Clywd, North-West (Sir A. Meyer) has referred. I hope that the effect of the tunnel on the number of short-haul flights from London to the other side of the Channel will have a beneficial environmental effect. Much of the burden on airports in southern England is derived from the many short-haul flights that take place. A reduction in the number of planes will have a greater environmental effect, in my view, than a reduction in the number of passengers. I see certain advantages. Those who fly from other parts of Britain and change planes at Heathrow will continue to fly to the Continent, but there will be advantages if the number of short-haul flights direct from the south is reduced.
I take the point that the Channel tunnel may not produce all that much of an advantage for heavy goods vehicles that come from the Continent into Britain. The drivers of these vehicles must have rest periods and there are some advantages for them in crossing the channel by ferry. The effect of the tunnel, however, will reduce crossing times and may well induce goods to be shifted from the roads to the railways. If that happens, we shall not have to worry about drivers having to stop for a rest, for example. There will be no need to onload or offload. I envisage enormous economic benefits to Britain if freight trains can run straight from the north of England down to the Ruhr and through to Italy, which would be a good thing to work for.

Mr. Stuart Holland: In supporting the case for it being possible for a train to go from any part of Britain to any part of the Continent, does my hon. Friend agree that the concentration of traffic at one terminus in London—at Waterloo—could be disadvantageous to precisely the dispersal that he is talking about?

Mr. Dubs: It seems that there will be great advantages if trains, both freight and passenger, can travel from parts of the Continent to the midlands or the north of England as well as to London. If that does not happen, we shall be losing some of the main advantages which the Channel tunnel may offer transport services.
One of the benefits of the tunnel will be the possibility of trains travelling from the north of England directly to various parts of the Continent, which will lead to enormous savings in time and, I hope, in costs, to the point where our roads will be a little clearer of the heavy goods vehicles which now clutter them.
The use of the tunnel by those who are going on holiday, for example, is one of the least attractive considerations. That is one of the least interesting factors from our point of view. Many of those who go on holiday by car may wish to continue using the ferries. The tunnel offers more benefits in the movement of freight than of passengers. Those who are taking their cars abroad way well choose to use traditional methods of crossing the Channel.
What will be the effect on the ferries? My right hon. Friend the Member for Deptford has talked about our traditions as a seafaring nation and the need for us to retain the skills that lie in the ferry services. I agree with that. I would be concerned and disappointed if the consequence of the Bill's enactment was to wipe out the ferry services around our coasts. I believe emphatically that that need not be the outcome and will not be. Demand for movements across the Channel is increasing and can be projected to


continue to increase. To an extent, the ferries and the tunnel will be competing for a larger market in the future than that for which they would be competing if the tunnel were to open today.
There are many other ferry routes apart from the short-haul ones from Dover and Folkestone, and I am sure that they will continue to operate. The advantages of using the ports of Plymouth and Portsmouth, for example, if one's destination does not lie directly from Dover and Folkestone, will remain, and to that extent I believe that the ferry services will continue.
It is argued that the Channel tunnel will cost a tremendous amount of money and that we as a nation could use it to better effect elsewhere. If the money were ours to use elsewhere and if we had a Labour Government, no doubt we could use it for things more important than the tunnel.

Mr. Roger King: Like what?

Mr. Dubs: That would be an interesting debate. However, that is not a choice that is open to us, since we are talking about private money, not public money. I have complained for a long time that too much British capital goes abroad and does not benefit the British people. If the tunnel is a way of ensuring that at least part of that capital is used to help our people, that is an advantage.
The most important single criticism of the development, at least from some of my colleagues, is that it will favour the south-east and not the other regions. That is an important argument and one that needs to be thought about. I do not believe that that will be the outcome. If anything, the development will help the regions at the expense of the south-east, other than during the immediate construction period when labour in the south-east will be employed.
If trains from the regions do not stop too much in the south-east and go straight through to other parts of the country, the difference in journey time between north-east England and Italy, for example, and the south-east and Italy, will be reduced. The extra time that it takes to shift goods and people, but especially goods, from the south-east to elsewhere, as well as the extra cost, is one of the reasons why so much investment is concentrated in the south-east. If the net difference in time and cost is reduced—I believe that it will be lessened quite significantly—not only will the tunnel not boost the south-east, it will give some help to the regions.
One or two problems have not been resolved completely, including customs controls. We do not want the Channel tunnel to exacerbate the drugs problems—the importation of heroin, for example, through Heathrow and elsewhere, despite the strenuous efforts of Customs and Excise to prevent it happening—by making it easier for them to be brought into the country. This is a matter of concern and one that needs to be thought about. There are ways of preventing the easier importation of drugs, but we must be aware that it will be difficult for our hard-pressed customs officers to ensure that the flow of drugs does not increase. I have visited Heathrow and watched the customs people in action. They work extremely hard to prevent heroin and other hard drugs entering the country, and I am sure that they will be able to use their skills when dealing with a different mode of travel.
If the Channel tunnel development is to make sense there must be further investment in British Rail services

throughout the country. It does not make much sense to have highly efficient train services between London and the Channel and through the tunnel, when nothing is done to help the movement of transport throughout the United Kingdom. Since 1979 the Government have been reluctant to do much for British Rail. I hope the Government, aware of the opportunities, will improve British Rail services throughout the country. We would then have services to compare with those in France and we would not have to yearn for a system as efficient as theirs.
In a debate such as this, we concern ourselves with matters of principle, but there are one or two matters of local concern in my constituency that I wish to mention. Hon. Members will be aware from the schedules to the Bill that there will be developments in the Wandsworth area. Those developments are causing concern in my constituency.
I believe that the development at Stewarts Lane could take place at a lower rather than a higher level. and therefore, it would have less impact on the people living in the nearby blocks of flats. There is to be another development in the Sheepcote lane area of my constituency, and I am concerned about the extra noise and disturbance that will be caused to the people living there. I hope British Rail will do its best to minimise the noise and that some compensation will be offered to people whose way of life could be seriously disturbed if there is a heavy increase in rail freight traffic through that part of my constituency.
The proposed plan to service all these trains near Clapham junction in south London has fallen by the wayside. I am persuaded, reluctantly, by British Rail that this must be. It now insists that the servicing will be carried out at the North Pole depot somewhere near Acton. I regret that decision.
A matter of wider interest to my constituency concerns the New Covent Garden market. Some years ago there was a proposal that it should have a railhead. That proposal was not followed through. I regret that, but I shall regret it even more if it is not provided now when other rail developments are taking place very close to the market.
A rail link to the market would be important because approximately 1 million tonnes of fruit and vegetables go through it every year. Between 2,000 and 3,000 tonnes of the produce comes from the United Kingdom; about 200,000 tonnes comes from outside Europe, and about 500,000 tonnes comes from Europe. I have discussed this railhead with the New Covent Garden authorities and British Rail and we agree that it is an interesting and attactive proposition. British Rail should become entrepreneurial and make a bid to carry a fair proportion of the traffic, now coming by road into the market, often in expensive refrigerated vehicles.

Mr. Peter Snape: I am sure my hon. Friend is aware that British Rail must put any proposal for such a development to an investment committee on which representatives of the Department of Transport sit. British Rail cannot make such a proposal until it knows that it can meet the necessary economic returns. That is why, when we press for improvements, we are continually told by Ministers that there are no British Rail proposals before the Government. If one considers the other side, we are told by British Rail that there is no point in making proposals because they would not meet the Department's investment criteria. That is the problem.

Mr. Dubs: I accept my hon. Friend's point, but surely the volume of fruit and vegetables going into the market is large enough for this proposal to be a worthwhile and interesting one for British Rail.
There would be great environmental advantages because it would halve the number of road vehicles, vehicles would distribute from the market only, and they would not need to go into the market. There are enormous attractions in getting fresh produce from Spain, which will be an increasingly large supplier to this country, and elsewhere. I am afraid that if the railhead is not developed at the market, some people will look elsewhere for trains that can deliver the produce. That may have a damaging effect on the market and threaten employment there.
I have spoken at some length on national and local considerations and I give the proposal my qualified support. To gain my unqualified support the Government would have to do far more to ensure that the benefits of the tunnel construction stay in this country and also promise further investment for British Rail, and not simply between London and the south-east. I hope the Government will respond to the needs and not make their gesture to British Rail in this project but forget about it in the future. The railways are needed all over the country not just in the south-east.

Mr. Charles Wardle: I begin, as other right hon. and hon. Members have done, by congratulating my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State on his new appointment.
I am grateful for the opportunity to speak because the Channel tunnel has aroused a great deal of interest in my constituency and, in some quarters, not a little anxiety. Although I represent a Sussex constituency, the eastern border of it is on the Kent and Sussex county boundary. My constituency is considerably closer to the proposed development areas around Folkestone than many parts of Kent. It is not surprising that many of my constituents, along with the East Sussex county council and the Rother district council, have expressed their views to me. Some are strongly held and have been expressed in a trenchant fashion.
The second and equally important reason for speaking is that I have had the opportunity of discussing the Channel tunnel project with my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Folkestone and Hythe (Mr. Howard). Earlier this year, I spoke in his constituency and saw, at first hand, the entirely understandable apprehension that is felt by some local residents at what they see as a major upheaval right on their doorsteps.
After my visit to Folkestone I was able to tell my hon. and learned Friend that the overwhelming opinion of the people I met was that he was doing an excellent job representing their interests concerning the Channel tunnel project. Therefore, I was not surprised to hear my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State say that my hon. and learned Friend had assiduously represented the interests of his constituents. My hon. and learned Friend is present today, as he has been throughout every debate on this subject.
The House is aware that my hon. and learned Friend cannot speak in this debate, although there are other ways in which he can make his feelings known to his Government colleagues. While the House may understand the convention by which my hon. and learned Friend is

bound on such occasions, it may be that some of his constituents do not readily appreciate that he cannot speak today. Therefore, if you will permit me, Mr. Deputy Speaker, later in my speech I shall mention some of the key points about developments in the vicinity of Folkestone which I have discussed with my hon. and learned Friend.
It is by no means my hon. and learned. Friend's view alone that I wish to express this afternoon. I have already mentioned that a number of my constituents have expressed concern. One young constituent has recently moved to Bexhill, having been brought up in Cheriton. She feels keenly that the proposals before the House will destroy the landscape of her childhood memories. Sadly, that is a fact. I have been able to tell her only that her feelings have been experienced by people whose houses have been obliterated by motorways and in the last century by the railways. Progress is inevitable.
I support the Channel tunnel. My reaction, which is perhaps typical of many British people, is that although I support the project, I do not intend to use the tunnel. That method of travel does not appeal to me. No matter how efficiently it is run or how quick the journey, it would be a highly claustrophobic experience. I am also worried that it will inevitably be a terrorist target. Nevertheless, there are sound reasons why the project should go ahead.
The project will unquestionably be a special example of private enterprise. Even at a time when about £60,000 million a year is spent on capital investment in the United Kingdom, to have a private enterprise scheme of this scale and nature is enormously important. This afternoon we have heard that during the construction stage about 8,000 jobs will be created on site on this side of the Channel and, equally important, that a further 5,000 jobs will be created for those who manufacture components and fabrications. That gives an idea of the scale and importance of the project, which I hope will shortly be launched.
When the project is completed, the economic advantages to the British economy will be considerable. The Secretary of State has told us that goods will move faster, more cheaply and more efficiently to the European market, and that about £46 billion of exports—about 60 per cent. of our total exports — go to the European Community. Before entering the House I spent years in manufacturing in the midlands, and I cannot impress sufficiently on the House how important a competitive advantage it will be to many manufacturers in the midlands, the north and throughout the country to put their products on a train and have them unloaded in Paris, Milan, or wherever.
It is also worth bearing in mind — this is often overlooked—that exports are vital to our economic performance. People often think of Japan as being in the forefront of export techniques, yet only about 14 per cent. of Japanese gross domestic product is accounted for by exports, whereas ours is nearer 30 per cent. That is why the project is so vital and why the rail link will provide such a competitive advantage. Some hon. Members have also told us what the tunnel will do for British Rail.
There are road links in my constituency and along the south coast that will matter a great deal. They are not simply in Kent. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State has already assured us that roads in Kent will be developed, but many of my right hon. and hon. Friends with south coast constituencies are keen that the entire south coast network should be considered in connection


with this project. Anybody who has at any time tried to drive along the south coast from Dover to Devon will quickly have concluded that it is considerably easier to drive to Edinburgh and back for the afternoon than to fight one's way along the south coast. That is the case with the A259 and A27 and beyond towards Devon. As the Channel tunnel project reaches fruition, it is imperative that we have adequate roads to take tourists and some freight traffic to the south-west.
An important part of the project which has been earmarked in the national road plan, the Hastings and Bexhill bypass, is in my constituency and the neighbouring constituency of Hastings and Rye. At present it is time-scaled for the early 1990s, and I, together with many hon. Friends, will press the Minister to ensure that that time scale is firmed up. Indeed, at present there is a public inquiry going on in my constituency about another part of that link, the Pevensey bypass, and the same applies there.
The reaction of my constituents to the proposals is predominantly one of concern about the impact on the environment, the need for proper control of the project and for consultation. A Joint Consultative Committee has been set up, and I hope that district and county councils outside Kent which feel that they will be affected will be able to lodge their petitions before 17 June in the Private Bill Office. The machinery for consultation exists, and I have assured my constituents of that.
Some of my elderly constituents—and I have many—have psychological fears. They genuinely feel that something of our island status will be lost. It is easy to dismiss that lightly as a ludicrous notion, but people conjure with that idea. I would say to anybody who has that idea that if it is now 17 years since man was first able to fly to the moon, surely we have sufficient technology to build a tunnel under 23 miles of the Channel.
Despite all those feelings, the implications of the tunnel and its direct consequences are unquestionably more profound for Folkestone and the area around it than for anywhere else. That became clear from my discussions with my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Folkestone and Hythe. Some features of the Bill are of particular concern to my hon. and learned Friend and to me, and we shall continue to seek a detailed and thorough justification for them. If they cannot be justified, we shall press for them to be modified or even eliminated. I shall confine myself to one or two features which are troubling us.
Many of my hon. and learned Friend's constituents are particularly worried about the siting of the railway sidings associated with the scheme at Dollands Moor near the attractive village of Saltwood, and believe that those sidings should be removed, if it is at all practicable. There appear to be two possible alternative sites for the sidings. One is within the terminal site itself and the other is at Ashford, where a less sensitive site could be made available. Many remain convinced that the sidings can and should be removed. I hope that the Government will look carefully at the possibility of resiting the sidings.
Some of my hon. and learned Friend's constituents are unconvinced of the need to provide both access to and egress from the terminal via the western end of the site. It involves the construction of a road across Beachborough park and between the villages of Newington and Peene, dividing one from the other. If egress were to be provided from the eastern end of the site, this road could be

eliminated from the scheme. I understand that that change would also have the advantage that traffic would leave the terminal facing Folkestone. That would enhance the prospect of the town benefiting from the construction of the tunnel. Some months ago, when I spoke in Folkestone, local people put that point to me. They feel it is a major project producing a major upheaval, and that there might be a danger of its benefits bypassing the town of Folkestone.
There is widespread concern about the movement of spoil and construction materials. Wherever possible those materials should be transported by rail. I know that this is already the subject of careful consideration by the Joint Consultative Committee which is chaired by my hon. Friend the Minister, and I hope that he will continue to give it careful attention.
On construction, I have discussed with my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Folkestone and Hythe the possibility of the appointment of an independent Channel tunnel commissioner who would act as a type of ombudsman. People could then clearly identify the person to whom they could bring their complaints and concerns, and who could take action to remedy their grievances. Both my hon. and learned Friend and I think that that is worth considering.
The main justification for the tunnel is the national advantages that it will bring, some of which I alluded to earlier. However, it is essential that some of the benefits to be derived from that national advantage are devoted to ensuring that the scheme is implemented in such a way as to do most good and least harm in the area facing the biggest impact—the environs of Folkestone. At the end of the debate I hope that my hon. Friend the Minister will give a clear recognition of the Government's responsibilities in that regard.

Mr. Stuart Holland: The decision to expand Waterloo station to include an international terminal for passengers using the Channel fixed link was taken not recently but five years ago. Neither then nor since have the Government or British Rail agreed to hold a public inquiry into the many aspects and consequences of a decision of that magnitude. Public consultations held by Lambeth council have consistently led to a rejection of the terminal proposal, and have just as consistently been ignored by British Rail and the Government. Larnbeth borough council has summarised BR's consultation document, saying that the document sent to
local authorities explains the works to be included in the Hybrid Bill but it is very thin on detail and deals very superficially with the way Waterloo was chosen in preference to other locations. Lambeth officers have met BR's channel tunnel team to try to get more information but BR were able to add very little about the actual works and virtually nothing about the spin-off effects of the terminal on the Waterloo area.
For example, I understand that we still do not even have elevation design drawings for the terminal facilities at Waterloo. If I am wrong. they must have been made available only recently and petitioners will clearly he unable to make a detailed response to them.
Indeed, the contention that the hybrid Bill procedure is inadequate or even superior to a full public inquiry has already been falsified by the confused and inadequate information that is available on Second Reading. Interested groups and individuals who wish to submit petitions, even with the full co-operation of officials of the


House, are confused about what form their submissions must take and where to deliver them. With only three weeks as the period envisaged for the submission of petitions, the instructions that have been issued remain unclear and contradictory. That affects not so much those who can gain access to legal advice and services, as those local residents who probably do not know how they should petition the House.
In March of this year I tabled 35 questions to the Department of Transport and the Department of the Environment and about nine of them were answered satisfactorily. However, as a result of so-called common interest meetings held by British Rail during the past week, we have at long last learnt that the decision regarding Waterloo station was based on "guesses" and that only within the past two months have studies been undertaken of the traffic impact on Waterloo. They are still not available in any proper form.
Considerable speculation has gone on. For example, initial indications are that there could be, as Lambeth council stresses, massive confusion for pedestrians at Waterloo station, with commuters being mixed up with tourists carrying heavy loads. There could be congestion on the Underground; an extra 5,000 cars, with an additional 2,150, on average, in August, and an extra I million taxis a year, with 4,300 daily on average in August; an extra 35,000 coaches. The congestion on roads, particularly York road, Waterloo circus and Lambeth circus roundabout, which is implied by the additional traffic is considerable. Given the exceptional interest that hon. Members on both sides of the House have shown, I shall elaborate further in a moment.
My support for the case for dispersal cannot have been hidden from any Conservative Members whose eyesight is in decent condition. But the argument that there should be only one terminal for Channel tunnel passengers originating in, or bound for London—an estimated 70 per cent. of the total number of 7 million to 15 million Channel fixed link passengers — has never been satisfactorily justified. By contrast, the case for dispersal is so strong that it has partially, although implicitly, been conceded in BR's plans to process passengers bound for the south-east at Ashford and to divert some midlands and north-bound passengers to Olympia.
The justification given for having a single London terminal is that the duplication of facilities would be too costly. This is so clearly undercut by the dispersal case that an intention on the part of BR or the Government to develop Waterloo and the terminal complex as a saleable commodity—a privatised fixed asset related to the fixed link system—inevitably suggests itself. I hope that the Minister will address himself to that point.
In any event, why pick Waterloo? The selection of Waterloo from among the possible London sites for a terminal has received no satisfactory justification. British Rail has admitted that no quantified research was done on other possibilities such as Victoria, King's Cross or Olympia. Only since the decision was taken has a study of Victoria been pursued. However, the results of it are not yet available. Yet Victoria has the advantage of direct links with the international airports of Heathrow and Gatwick, as well as having hotel and other tourist accommodation in place. Moreover, it is situated north of

the Thames which is where, according to BR's repeated assertions, most London passengers will originate or be bound for.
A case could also be made for Blackfriars. In that context, I shall cite a letter that was addressed earlier this year to the Department of Transport. It came from a Mr. K. Meyer, who is honorary secretary to the National Council on Inland Transport. I did not solicit the letter, but when he discovered that I was making a case for dispersing the traffic in London, to bypass London, he sent me a copy of the letter. It is dated 30 April 1986, and states:
I refer to the question of the location of the London station. Both this Council and the RDS are convinced that Waterloo is the wrong choice, both as regards linkage to the London road and the public transport network and proximity to the City as such. This is also the view of Transport 2000 London
and other bodies.
We consider that Blackfriars would be a much better location. It is north of the river near to the City, it would be less costly in route alteration expenditure and furthermore it would offer the opportunity of through working using"—
I trust that the Minister will address himself to this—
the Snowhill route
for traffic north,
and the Blackfriars bridge".
Mr. Meyer then goes into various technical matters concerning the tunnel curve limitations at King's Cross and he stresses that there are other route possibilities "which could be adapted". The House and the public should address themselves to those issues.
Given that independent endorsement of the case for at least another major station in London, why should it not be possible for passengers boarding in Brussels or Paris to arrive at Victoria, Waterloo or Blackfriars? I accept that there are certain limitations about the lengths of platform involved, but at least then there would be no need to pile the traffic into one terminal with the disadvantageous effects that that would have on the local environment and, in particular, on the overloading of the Underground and of the road network.
I welcome the Secretary of State's invitation that I should go to see him and take with me some local residents and constituents. We shall seek to put that sort of point to him. Hon. Members on both sides of the House are sensitive to the possible impact on local communities. Consequently, I shall not detain the House for long on that point, but it is of great importance to the people who live there.
No consideration has been given by British Rail or by the Government to the destructive impact of their plans on the community in Waterloo. That community has been struggling to survive decades of depopulation and the razing of homes to make way for offices. After 14 years of campaigning, the residents have at last achieved a stable and growing permanent population through the provision of new, fair rented housing with gardens, exemplified in the new Coin street scheme which is within 200 yards of Waterloo station, The residents have also achieved the protection and promotion of basic retail shopping and have resisted pressures to close primary schools. There is a viable community in the Waterloo area and it is threatened by the kind of developments proposed. In addition, the worries expressed by local residents who see their neighbourhood threatened have consistently fallen on deaf ears.
The guide to compensation relating to the tunnel scheme issued by British Rail says that payments for noise and nuisance may be made to businesses that lose custom,


or to owners whose property loses value, but not to ordinary residents whose lives have been made more unpleasant and difficult. One does not need a Nobel prize in cost-benefit analysis to see that this is a sharp discrimination against local people and favours the business community. We should at least reverse that and get a commitment from British Rail and from the Government that for any works going ahead at any station in London local residents will be compensated for damage.
I regret that, because of a prior commitment, I was unable to be present for the whole of the earlier part of the debate. I suggest that if Government Members have not already made the argument for individual compensation to be paid to those who are most directly affected by road works or railroads or other works associated with this project, they should do so. Hon. Members on both sides of the House ought to press for that.

Mrs. Currie: I have listened with great interest to what the hon. Member has said about Waterloo, because for the past few months I have been working above Waterloo station. Despite the trains, I was trying hard to listen to what colleagues in the Department of Education and Science were saying. Does the hon. Gentleman agree that the most important service that can be offered to a community and to the people in Waterloo is the opportunity of employment? If British Rail were proposing to spend money in my constituency on local stations to provide the sort of increased service that is likely to come through Waterloo, I would be thrilled to bits.

Mr. Holland: I suspect that that is why the electors of Vauxhall elected me rather than a member of the party to which the hon. Member for Derbyshire, South (Mrs. Currie) belongs. It is not at all clear that there will be anything like the kind of job creation which would thrill her to bits in the refurbishment of the station. I shall come to that point shortly.
Speculation and blight will be a major issue if we have a single terminus. It will he less of an issue if passenger traffic between Victoria, Waterloo and Blackfriars can be dispersed. Pressures for building major hotels in the immediate vicinity or for a change in retail use are obvious. The argument about those pressures will be submitted in detailed form by Lambeth council during the progress of the Bill, and I trust that serious attention will be paid to those arguments. It is evident to people who live around some of the other main stations in London that there will be a transformation in the Waterloo area from owner-occupation and long-term tenancies to short-stay hotels and bed-and-breakfast accommodation, and from resident shopping to fast-food and souvenir outlets.
The history of central London communities, including the one in Waterloo, has consistently shown that, where changes in land use from housing or industry to office and hotel development have been permitted, speculation in property values has occurred and along with that has come long-term environmental degradation. Waterloo has the misfortune to have a higher degree of office development than most other central London areas and has experienced the ensuing speculation and blight. Speculation brings about the razing of houses, the driving away of residents, and the boarding up of sites held by property companies awaiting an even more profitable price bonanza.

Mrs. Currie: Nonsense.

Mr. Holland: The hon. Member for Derbyshire, South says, "Nonsense." I do not know how much time she spends in Waterloo station, hut if she cares to come up river a bit to Vauxhall bridge she will see razed sites on both sides of the bridge because of office speculation over a long period. A former Secretary of State for the Environment addressed himself to the problem of blighted streets.

Mr. Tony Banks: There have been a number of former Secretaries of State.

Mr. Holland: Yes. One of the many former Secretaries of State in this Government addressed himself to the problem that blighted streets in areas like those that I have mentioned contribute to the fear and insecurity of the remaining residents. That would be more of a problem bearing in mind the sort of increase in crime that would be likely to follow the sort of railway terminal expansion planned for Waterloo.
I take the point made by my hon. Friend the Member for Battersea (Mr. Dubs) who spoke of his anxiety about increased drug traffic on the Channel tunnel link. I am sure that all hon. Members share that anxiety. If there is a single terminal and a single inspection of luggage at customs, what are the implications for immigration procedures? Has the Minister addressed himself to the kind of detention facilities that are likely to be operated? Will they be in the Waterloo area or on the Kent coast? How will the immigration service cope with this? The Opposition would much prefer to see the detention facilities of the Home Office smaller in scale and less frequently filled than they are. But that is a serious matter and so far the Government have said nothing whatever about it.
Lambeth is one of the most hard pressed of the inner city boroughs and can expect no additional resources from the Government. The Bill seriously jeopardises Lambeth's lawful planning powers and thus weakens the basic principle of planning by local authorities. British Rail contends that Lambeth, within its own planning powers, could control the adverse effects that I have described. That is not so, because the Bill will permit British Rail to build "a frontier facility" in Waterloo station and the requirement to obtain detailed planning permission from the local authority has been voided by the Bill.
The Bill disables the usual protections of the planning system precisely in order to prevent the borough from exercising them. I am worried about this because in one of the few replies to the written questions that I put down in March I was given an assurance that Lambeth's planning powers would not be voided. This is yet another example of the way in which the Government. in their undue haste to deliver results, have prejudged the situation and have been misleading hon. Members.
Horrendous traffic congestion in the area is threatening. That is evident from the recent presentation of British Rail's proposed solution to the local traffic problem. It has recognised that there will be major traffic congestion along York road to the west of the station and in the two major traffic circles of Waterloo bridge and Westminster bridge. British Rail's traffic consultant estimates an influx of between 7 million and 15 million additional passengers at Waterloo station. The difference between 7 million and 15 million is rather sizeable and the traffic implications are rather sizeable. There is no indication that the traffic


system will be able to cope with numbers of that kind. The consultant to British Rail made the argument that traffic congestion would sort itself out or, as he put it:
achieve an equilibrium as drivers found other routes
This beggar-my-neighbour attitude means that, as congestion becomes unbearable, drivers will press on to the already overcrowded roads of Southwark, Wandsworth and Westminster in order to avoid the traffic snarls around the station. The same traffic consultant's solution to the York road traffic jams is to re-route the traffic from and to the station in such a way as to dump the bulk of it into Westminster Bridge road and thus into Westminster circle and bridge. The York road traffic congestion problem was simply rotated by 90 degrees. It will be for Wandsworth and Westminster to find their own solutions.
I suggest to hon. Members, in particular to those hon. Members who sometimes have to come to Divisions in the House across Westminster Bridge, that on more than one occasion they have found several tourist buses parked on the bridge. It is an attractive place to park if one wants a good view, but they park on the bridge because they can find nowhere else. I urge hon. Members to take seriously the implications of this vastly expanded bus and tourist traffic as well as the taxi traffic.
The House will not take a view tonight on this issue. The Standing Committee and Select Committee procedure that we have adopted cannot take a proper view on it, either. It is in the interests of hon. Members in their use of this House that there should be a public inquiry into the dispersal issue and similar issues — the parking of coaches, over 500,000 trips by private motor cars, and 35,000 additional coaches.
A proper numbers game on rational traffic routeing can scarcely be expected, granted the variation in the estimate of the number of passengers and vehicles that British Rail anticipates will be added to the Waterloo area and station. The temptation to use the highest guess at the additional number of passengers is understandable. Why? Because the income to the Channel tunnel consortium of banks is based upon a straightforward multiplication of fares by users. Hence, the more of the latter, the more profits for the scheme.
On the other hand, when discussing how the additional travellers will be accommodated, the management of British Rail shies away from the higher figure. It says that it is not its own estimate but that of its French partners and that it may be a little high. In fact, British Rail has done no research to convince anyone who might be sceptical that even the lowest guess as to the additional number of passengers can satisfactorily be accommodated.
When pressed to explain their estimate, both British Rail and the Channel Tunnel Group say that the major portion of this new traffic will be won from airlines serving London and Paris. To the extent that it seems plausible, it will surely interfere with another of the Government's current projects — the selling off of British Airways. Potential investors in a privatised British Airways will certainly find it less attractive to buy an asset from a Government who are planning to diminish British Airways' income in a few years.
Moreover, the location of the Channel tunnel terminal at Waterloo will make it more difficult for connecting passengers to reach the airports, just as the planned cancellation of fast boat trains after 1993 will make access

to the ferry service less attractive. It is a further example of the left hand working against the right in the Department of Transport. At best, it knows not what it is doing. At worst, it is misleading the public and the House.
On employment, to which the hon. Member for Derbyshire, South referred, we should be aware that the claim that major new employment will result from the construction and operation of the fixed link is unlikely to be substantiated. Tens of thousands of jobs are predicted as the dividend for the ordinary people of Britain, while the investors in the scheme are to realise between 18 and 20 per cent. per annum from their investment. Perhaps their 20 per cent. will materialise, but there are few grounds for believing the promise about jobs.
The promise of 550 jobs to be created at Waterloo by British Rail is to be welcomed, as is any job creation in a depressed inner city area, but we must ask ourselves whether that number of new jobs can be considered a good return on £60 million worth of investment. Moreover, many of the other jobs that are being talked of in offices, hotels and shops would simply relocate existing jobs in central London to follow the new concentration of potential customers. Of those 550 new jobs, 200 are train crews, 20 are maintenance staff and 150 are trained catering staff. I welcome the creation of those jobs, but only 80 will be terminal staff jobs, and I shall be surprised if eight of them go to Vauxhall constituents. In other words, I am not over-delighted by the number of new jobs to be created, as the hon. Lady assumes that I should be.
At the outset, the British and French partners of the Channel Tunnel Group spoke as if they would share out the employment benefits in possibly equal shares, but as time has passed it seems that the potential British share has diminished. First, we learnt that at least one third of the contract value of the scheme must be available to open bids from other EEC countries. Then we learnt that one of the main items of heavy expenditure—the tunnel digging machines—cannot be built in Britain but will have to be obtained from elsewhere, probably from Germany or the United States. Still later we learnt that the contribution of Japanese banks to the aggregate capital for the venture, over £4 billion, is 43 per cent., or £1·8 billion.
In addition to the problems that this will cause for foreign exchange, it is as well to remember that Japan is at present constructing a far more complicated tunnel from northern Honshu to Hokkaido and that it has some of the world's most complicated engineering and electronics industries, both of which are essential to the tunnel scheme. Are we to suppose that, with this dominant share of the project's capital and with the technology for bearing a significant part of the construction, a major share of the employment will not go to the Japanese?
If new jobs result, they are more likely to come from public rather than private investment. One of the most cynical aspects of the Bill is the pretence that it will involve no public expenditure. The public is being asked to pay £60 million for changes at Waterloo, despite the fact that the Government keep claiming that private rather than public money is involved. I urge the Government to think again about dispersal. I, or my right hon. Friends, will seek to press this matter as the Bill proceeds.

Mr. Roger King: Listening to the hon. Member for Vauxhall (Mr. Holland), hiding behind that very attractive yellow dinner plate, I was rather


worried about whether he would eventually get to Scotch Corner in discussing the implications of the Channel tunnel link. Many and varied problems are likely to emanate from the development of the Channel tunnel. However, we ought not to lose sight of the very broad advantages that will be made available to this country and to all sections of the community in all regions from the building of the tunnel. Of course there will be restructuring problems in the Kent area. Competition will cause concern to the ferry industry and that concern should not be underestimated. However, substantial additional jobs will be created throughout the length and breadth of the country as the tunnel link is developed.
I am a member of the Select Committee on Transport. Last November we were privileged to travel to Dover where we looked at the existing tunnel works, such as they are. It was a typical November day, with mist and an uneven sea. They were the kind of conditions that would lead one to feel rather uncomfortable on a voyage across the Channel. We descended by vehicle down the existing shaft and travelled about three quarters of a mile to the face where we saw the remains of the original mole, which had lain dormant for the last 10 years. The cutting blades were still jammed into the rock face where they had been left all those years ago. But the tunnel was in perfect condition. It was warm and it was dry. The temperature never alters.
Standing at the furthermost point east of this country, I wondered why we had stopped the work then. I had a feeling of excitement and anticipation when I thought that once again a replacement mole will be churning out the soil as the tunnel proceeds towards France. All members of the Select Committee were aware of the great opportunities and the challenge that the building of the tunnel link will provide for the community in general.
Of course, we shall need to look at the infrastructure, in particular at the roads in Kent and at the road system leading to that part of the country. There are problems now with the M25 and the Dartford crossing. We must ensure that the M25 is adequately strengthened in size and capacity, particularly at the Dartford crossing. Additional Dartford crossing links must be in place before the opening of any Channel link. The additional traffic that is envisaged will probably find, if a new crossing is not made available, that there is a considerable bottleneck when it tries to negotiate that particular part of the M25 under the river Thames.
What impressed the Select Committee most — it certainly impressed me—was the enormous opportunity that is to be afforded to the railways industry. The levels which the industry can achieve in developing its commercial structure are almost without bounds. At a time when it has difficulties in maintaining jobs, principally in the construction side of the industry, the opportunities for building railway rolling stock for European use are substantial.
Although the track gauge is the same throughout Europe, the overall width of rolling stock is not. It is impossible for European rolling stock to ramble over the British Rail system because it would collide with platforms, tunnels and bridges, but it is possible for our rolling stock to ramble all over Europe.
If we are to realise the potential of our railway system and have the trans-shipments of rolling stock and trucks throughout Europe, we can use only existing British rail stock, or, to he more precise, we must build a substantial

quantity of trucks and coach rolling stock. That alone would provide many jobs, not only in the British railway workshop industry, but in commercial private industry. The west midlands stands to gain substantially, as a historical builder of rolling stock for more than a century, principally at Metro Cammell in Birmingham, which is anxiously awaiting the decision to go forward with the Channel link so that it can start to quote for the ensuing rail traffic and the building of rolling stock which will be on offer.
The opportunities for the railways to capture commercial road haulage traffic have already been mentioned. There will be a reduction of about 1,000 trucks per day on the roads. That will indirectly play a part in reducing the load on the M25 and Dartford crossings. The traffic from those trucks will go on to rail transport, which will mean a substantial increase in income for British Rail. It has been predicted that the present 2 million tonnes of cross-Channel freight that goes by railway will increase to 50 million tonnes and more by the early 1990s.
The business of rail freight will become so viable that there would be no reason why the ultimate in privatisation could not take place—a railfreight plc. It would be an ideal candidate for further privatisation and investment by the private sector in what will be a substantially viable commercial undertaking. I look forward to that happening.
The amount of exports that we can ship out, which at present causes difficulties, can be shown by coal shipment from our super pits in the north, in the Vale of Belvoir and elsewhere, which the National Coal Board is anxious to develop. The opportunities to ship coal into Europe from our high-speed, high-technology pits must he fairly substantial. There would be a great advantage in merry-go-round trains which would load up in our new super-coalfields, go non-stop into Europe to deliver their coal and then return.
In terms of car shipments into and out of the country, the opportunity to reduce the number of vehicles in transit, to reduce the average transport time from three to four days, to get cars from the factories in the midlands to Europe in two days will lead to a reduction in manufacturers' overheads and costs. But here I give a word of warning. It is all very well to improve the connection between Britain and mainland Europe and to speed the flow of finished and imported goods, but it is not much good if we do not speed customs documentation. It has been suggested that although it takes three or four days for a car to be taken from its factory in Birmingham to its port of destination in Europe, it takes another two days for the customs documentation to catch it up. We should pay close attention to streamlining customs documentation in line with the opportunities afforded by the speedier transit of goods through the tunnel.
The opportunities for passenger traffic are also substantial. It will not be much good if one boards a train in Birmingham and is excessively delayed at the entrance to the tunnel while one goes through the customs procedure. I hope, not necessarily that the trains could be locked upon leaving Birmingham so that no-one could get out or in, but that a system of on-board train customs could be encouraged.
The opportunities for commercial passenger traffic for the railways from the midlands and the north are good and would compare well with those offered by the airlines and the roads, but we should consider building new rail links. There is no reason why a private investor should not


consider the possibilities of a high speed rail link from the Dover area to the midlands, bypassing much of London, and developing it as a single-line, high-speed track. Those are all possibilities which come to mind as the tunnel and its links are developed.

Mr. Speed: May I beg my hon. Friend not to pursue this argument if he wants me and many of my hon. Friends from Kent to support him in the Lobby tonight? The high-speed rail link, which was a feature of the 1974 scheme, means death in Kent, Sussex, Surrey and many other counties right up to Warwickshire and Birmingham—the area that he represents. It is not necessary with modem railway technology, and I hope that the matter is dead and buried one and for all.

Mr. King: I accept my hon. Friend's point. Of course it is possible for advanced railway rolling stock to run at very high speed on existing track, but there is no reason why we could not straighten some of the existing track and redevelop some of it into high-speed links. It might require the building of 20 miles of new railway, as has been done round the Selby coalfield. That is one way to develop the links. I was not suggesting an entirely new railway system, although that may bear examination at a subsequent date. That might take place at some time in the future when the temperature of public opinion is more satisfactory than it is now.

Mr. Snape: Perhaps the hon. Gentleman would let the hon. Member for Ashford (Mr. Speed) know that the high-speed rail link to which he refers—whether a new one or an upgrading of the existing line—would be much less intrusive in Ashford than would some of the road developments that are apparently supported by hon. Members from that area.

Mr. King: The hon. Gentleman makes a good point which should be considered.

Mr. Adley: If my hon. Friend would care to look at the railway map of Britain and recall the history of the south-eastern railway, he would know that less than a century ago, it built a line from Tonbridge to Redhill to Guildford to Reading which still exists and which was identified in the second part of the Beeching report as a major trunk route in connection with the Channel tunnel. We do not need to build new railway lines: we need to invest in the lines that we have.

Mr. King: My hon. Friend is an acknowledged expert on railways, and I shall not even attempt to argue with him. I return to my original point: that development, straightening and realignment is probably what is needed. The Birmingham to Euston line is not the straightest that one could envisage. In several areas, the curves are substantial. That matter could be considered subsequently. It is not a subject that one would consider as a matter of priority.
Hon. Members who represent the north, the midlands and Scotland have made the criticism that the development of the Eurotunnel will act like a plughole in a bath—once it is there, all the business will flow out through it, leaving nothing in the north. That is not the case. The

further improvements in communications and the high-speed trans-shipment of bulk quantities of materials by the railways through the Channel link can only improve the viability and future of industries in the north.
One substantial industry that will be improved is tourism. The fact that the European tourist has to make the physical change on to a ferry to come to this country acts as a certain deterrent to making that change and visiting us. The opportunity to be able to put his car on the train, to be whisked through a tunnel at 100 mph, to get off the other end within 30 minutes and to have access to our road system can only encourage tourists not just to come to the south and London but to travel much further north. It is notable that the number of European tourists as opposed to American tourists that we seem to attract to this country in comparison with the number of British tourists who go to Europe is tending to stagnate. We need to encourage better communications and opportunities to get such people to visit our country, and I think that the Channel link will provide that.
I favour the Channel link immensely. I think it is a great challenge. It is a rare opportunity indeed for a generation such as ours to have the privilege of representing our constituents, to be able to make a decision like this that will substantially improve the well-being of society and the well-being of the country and to open up a new future and prosperity for many areas, which is what will happen as a result of the decision that we are about to make. My one regret is the Channel tunnel entrance does not reside within the city of Birmingham.

Mr. Tony Lloyd: If the Channel tunnel entrance were to be located in the city of Birmingham, it might engender greater sympathy in the north of England, Scotland, Wales and other parts of the country that will be severely affected for the worse by the building of the Channel tunnel.
I listened closely to those Conservative Members who spoke in the interests of their constituents in the Kent area who are fearful of development. I have sympathy with their views, which they are well able to put, but I should like to express a view that has largely gone unheard so far in the debate from a different part of the country.
It is almost a sign of the way in which the country is now going that a subject that has such massive regional implications has been dominated so far not only in the Chamber but in its wider discussion by the views of the interests of one region—the south-east. There is, I am afraid, a tendency for many in the south-east to forget that unity, if one is to talk seriously of a nation that is united, depends upon the interests of all parts of the nation being taken into consideration in such a major issue as this. Almost inevitably the Channel tunnel, if it is to be of any benefit, will prove to be detrimental to areas like mine, for reasons that it is difficult to establish.
To illustrate to the House how much the north of England is still dependent on manufacturing industry, I would point out how location decisions have been made in the present recession. In my constituency a company called Sterling Greengate Cables has decided to close its plant in Trafford park, Manchester, and to resite some of the production into its existing plant at Aldermaston in the south of England. The reasons for the decision, I am sure, are commercially logical, but it is obviously a tragedy for the Manchester area.
If Conservative Members who support this Channel tunnel enterprise can convince themselves that the location decision in the case of such a company is more likely to be made in favour of the north of England, they are kidding themselves. It is obvious that there is already a very strong trend in favour of location in what is already the most prosperous region of the nation, because the dominant markets and financial back-up are in the south-east. All that will be enhanced by the decision to build the Channel tunnel. A manufacturer who is considering serving the market not only of the United Kingdom but of the north of western Europe is far more likely to pick a location in the south-east than in the north of England.

Mr. Snape: Why?

Mr. Lloyd: For the simple reason, as has already been observed, that the dominant market of Great Britain is the south-east, and the south-east is most easily served from within that region. The decision to try to serve that region from the north of England may make sense so long as the plant is serving only one nation, but once one is dealing on an international scale, it makes more sense to serve the north of France from the south-east rather than from the north of England.

Mr. Lester: Anything that lowers the cost of transportation is likely to keep people in Manchester and the north where the skills and plant already exist. The fact that one is lowering transport costs and improving the efficiency of access to the markets is more likely to make businesses stay where they are than to move.

Mr. Lloyd: The hon. Gentleman speaks as if this is a one-way equation, but it is not. We are talking of lowering transportation costs in more than one direction with a number of consequences that I will try to expound. The traffic is two-way. To the already greatly weakened manufacturing sector in this country—it has experienced great competitive strain in recent years—there will be added further competitive pressure because, by reducing travelling times from the north of England to Europe, if that be the case, inevitably we shorten the travelling time from Europe into Britain. Hon. Gentlemen should not forget that we have a very high propensity to import. Imports will be increased because the Channel tunnel will make it relatively easier for European exporters to move their goods into the United Kingdom.
Throughout the north and Scotland the idea of a Channel tunnel is greeted with extreme concern and reluctance. The Government are seen as being committed to the interests of just one part of the country and exercising that commitment at the expense of other parts of the country.
I turn next to public spending. My hon. Friend the Member for Vauxhall (Mr. Holland) made the point that one of the deliberate myths about the Channel tunnel is that it is all private capital. That is absolute nonsense. We have heard Conservative Members demanding money for the M25 and for the rail network. That money will come not from the private sector but from public funds. Those of us who have tried to get some assistance for investment by British Rail into the north-west have seen how difficult it is to get any public spending in that part of the country.

Mr. Crouch: What about the Windsor link?

Mr. Lloyd: Indeed, it is of great importance that we should have the Windsor link coming through, as it will.

It is also important to have a rail link to Manchester airport. However, we cannot persuade the Government or British Rail to put that money in with alacrity. They will put money in the Channel tunnel and into one region which in many ways has more than the national average of investment in infrastructure, but there will be no increase in investment for British Rail or to allow for the development of rail links to other parts of the country. Even were my fears unfounded and the enterprise proved to be to the advantage of the north, we will not be granted the infrastructure investment and rail links to allow us to take advantage of the Channel tunnel. That money will be spent in one part of the country.
The employment benefits will be marginal. The point has been made that investment in the initial project will create jobs throughout the country. Ministers have been pressed on that before, but they have not come up with convincing answers. What guarantee is there that the steel or the machinery will be produced in Britain? None whatsoever. There are sound reasons for believing the opposite. The capital investment will simply create jobs overseas. That will work against the interests of areas outside the south-east, and it will not be in the interests of any part of Britain.
For those reasons, the project is deeply flawed. It is not just a balance of probabilities. There is almost a fundamental imbalance in the arguments that have been put forward. No attempt has been made by the Government to explain the benefits for my region or for any other region. The Government know as well as I do that they cannot put forward a convincing case to show that the investment in this large infrastructure will be in the interests of any region, apart from one small area of the United Kingdom.

Mr. Jonathan Aitken: I am pleased to follow the hon. Member for Stretford (Mr. Lloyd), because I share his view that the project is deeply flawed and that the case that was persuasively but somewhat superficially presented by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Transport when he opened the debate has by no means been made out in the convincing depth that is essential if the House is to approve the project on Second Reading. Indeed, my right hon. Friend seemed almost to have acquired with his seals of office, on which I congratulate him, a pair of rose-coloured spectacles. Although he was fluent, he did not give any evidence to support his thesis on the excitement, the jobs and the benefits for industry that would come our way.
In the interests of brevity, because many of my right hon. and hon Friends wish to speak, I shall not dwell on any of the local issues that concern my constituency. I am sure the House knows by now that I am deeply concerned about them. Nevertheless, recognise that the tunnel is above all a national and not just a regional project. It will make a permanent change to the geography of Europe. It will create massive trade and development advantages for our competitors, the French. It will shift a great slice of Britain's economic activity towards the south-east of England, and perhaps out of England altogether when one considers the El Dorado style grants to the Nord-Pas de Calais region of France that were referred to earlier. Above all, it will hand out a near-monopoly to one group


of private interests on privileged terms and conditions unheard of in this country since the days of benefit of clergy.
Even those of my hon. Friends who support the Channel tunnel concept should have serious doubts about whether the Government have struck the right balance between the public interest and the private interest. My hon. Friends should have sleepless nights about whether we have not already conceded game, set and match to the French. As parliamentarians, we should all be deeply worried by the fact that we are allowing this great adventure to take place at such breakneck speed that only minimal and woefully inadequate parliamentary scrutiny can take place.
If the Select and Standing Committees of this House and of another place are allowed and encouraged to do what the Government have so far signally failed to do, and give all aspects of the mega-project full and careful investigation and amendment, with the public interest at long last given proper priority above, or at least alongside, the private interests of Eurotunnel, we shall end up with a different Bill from the one that we are debating today.
One point that worries me greatly is not seeing the right balance between the private interests, including those of my constituency, and the national and public interest. One of the first steps in getting the balance right means putting the lid on the cornucopia of special privileges to which Eurotunnel seems to think it has become entitled at public expense.
Let me list three of Eurotunnel's special privileges that should be removed, or at least reduced. There is the privilege of having public money spent on a large scale to benefit a private consortium. At the outset of this enterprise we were given the impression that it would be entirely a privately financed project — a piece of mumbo-jumbo that is still being repeated by hon. Members in this debate. Now at least we know differently. We know that a sum of £400 million is to be spent by British Rail and that at least £75 million is to be spent on road infrastructure. We have heard request after request from every corner of the House for more public money to be spent.
This is only the beginning of the story. If the Select Committees do their job properly and respond to the pleas of petitioners for more roads, special grants, compensation funds, extra environmental measures and so on, this will be a much more expensive bill both for the taxpayer and for the promoters. My prediction is that the taxpayers and ratepayers will in the end be footing a bill of at least £1 billion of public expenditure, all to boost the commercial interests of this essentially private development.
The whole basis of the Government's policy towards this private development is set out in their recent White Paper on the fixed link, which was published in February. It is a remarkably slender and deficient document, partly because of its curious inaccuracies and omissions. For example, it was able to reach its sanguine forecast that the Channel ports would suffer a net loss of 3,000 jobs in 1993 only by the device of omitting all mention of Britian's second biggest Channel port, Ramsgate, from the calculations.
There was something much worse about the White Paper. It gave Eurotunnel the privilege of publishing all the consortium's self-servingly optimistic figures on traffic flows, revenues, employment and so on, while the

Government deliberately suppressed their own calculations on those vital matters. The Government's justification for this bizarre act of suppression is contained in paragraph 7 of the White Paper, which says:
The Government … does not intend to publish its own assessments of traffic volumes, tolls and the revenue which might be earned by each project.
It goes on to explain why:
Given the wholly private nature of the financing, it is for the Channel Tunnel Group-France-Manche to produce a prospectus in the usual way, with the necessary detailed analysis for potential investors.
What an extraordinary abdication of responsibility stands revealed by that paragraph. The Government have made their own forecasts on all those vital issues, but they are different forecasts. I happen to know that they are much more pessimistic than the CTG's forecast, but the Government will not publish them in case they upset potential investors. What a con trick, not just on the investors and their Japanese banks, but on the British public as well. Imagine the outcry if any Government published a White Paper on, say, lung disease and printed only the statistics supplied by cigarette manufacturers. Yet that is just the kind of privilege that was extended in the White Paper to Eurotunnel. That is wrong. This is not just a hybrid Bill, but a hybrid project. Taxpayers' money will go in on a large scale to help private investors.
The Select Committees and the Standing Committees must put a full stop to the secrecy and suppression. The Government must be forced to publish the results of their own computer model calculations and their forecasts on traffic flows. Only in that way can we hope to reach the vital truth on certain questions for the taxpayer as to whether he will get value for money and whether the project is truly viable. Therefore, it is vital that we pass the amendment to the committal motion, which will ensure that Committees have the right to send for persons and papers.
I am also concerned that Eurotunnel will be given special legal privileges under the Bill. Some relate to matters such as simplified and speeded-up customs and immigration procedures which would be the envy of every Channel port. The most controversial privilege appears to be that Eurotunnel has won for itself a legal entitlement to disturbingly lower safety standards than those that are enforced on all comparable forms of transport. If I may explain, on all ferries, hovercraft and surface motorail trains in this country the Department of Transport has regulations which include two strictly enforced requirements relating to cars. The first is that passengers must travel in compartments separate from the cars and their petrol tanks. The second is that cars must be lashed down. For obvious reasons those are critically important safety requirements.

Sir Anthony Meyer: Can my hon. Friend recall having his car lashed down when he has been on a cross-Channel ferry? I have never had mine lashed down.

Mr. Aitken: It is usual for them to be either tied down individually or for the first and last vehicles of every row to be tied down so that they are all immobilised—[Laughter.] I would not laugh if I were my hon. Friend the Member for Clwyd, North-West (Sir A. Meyer). Eurotunnel has different safety standards from those enforced on the ferries and elsewhere.
In addition, paragraph 52/4 of the Department's guidelines to promoters makes it clear that the omission


was deliberate. Eurotunnel's own brochures illustrate passengers, drivers, children and vending machines in the same compartment as their cars with their full petrol tanks, which shows that the designers are intending to make full use of those relaxed and privileged safety standards. Even if it costs the promoters an additional £100 million to redesign those trains, they must put the safety standards for the chunnel on the same high level as the ferries and hovercraft are legally obliged to uphold. Let us not give Eurotunnel any privileges that may lower safety standards.
We should not be under any illusions that Eurotunnel has anything other than an award of a monopoly from the state. It might not be a total monopoly, but it is one whose nearest legal equivalent in this country is the award of a television franchise. I know something about the business of obtaining monopoly licences from the state in the broadcasting industry. When we obtain a monopoly licence in television—and it can be a licence to lose as well as to make money—it is under the most rigorous conditions. Among other things, the Government authority has the power to scrutinise, in meticulous detail, all aspects of the licence holder's finances and financial arrangements—such things as pricing policy, contracts with advertising customers, cost structures, verification of revenue and true levels of profitability. All those matters are, quite properly, the subject of continuing supervision by the Government authority. That is part of the price that television companies pay to obtain a state monopoly.
Where in this Bill is there any comparable degree of supervision of Eurotunnel on behalf of the public interest? My understanding is that there will be no watchdog mechanisms to prevent monopoly power from being abused, other than the limp wrist of European competition law. That omission makes the Channel tunnel not a competitive free market project, but a monopolistic freebooter's paradise.
Already a whiff of scandal is emanating from some of the deals that Eurotunnel has been able to make by the force of its monopoly power — incidentally, deals in which public money is indirectly heavily involved, to the possible disadvantage of the taxpayer. I shall give the House a specific example. During the bidding process for the concession, the other leading bidders such as Channel Expressway and Euroroute were negotiating with SNCF and British Rail to provide a rail service. Channel Expressway struck a deal with the railways that would have resulted in SNCF and British Rail being charged a minimum of £56 million and a maximum of £112 million per annum for use of the tunnel. Euroroute had a deal at similar prices.
However, once Eurotunnel was able to announce itself as the winning monopoly concessionaire, from its superior bargaining position it was able to extract much more money from the poor old railways. My information is that British Rail and SNCF will pay £140 million in the first year of the tunnel's operation at 1985 prices, rising to £200 million. That is quite a difference from the £56 million to £112 million that the railways would have paid Channel Expressway.
Those tariff arrangements may constitute an effective subsidy by the state railways of Britain and France to the private business men operating Eurotunnel. Therefore, on behalf of the taxpayer I want to know a great deal more about the contract details. Already some eminent figures in the railway world are very concerned about the matter, which privately they have described as a rip-off. However,

let us not prejudge the issue—let everything be out in the open, in Parliament and in front of the Committee so that we can judge for ourselves.
On the face of it, it appears mighty strange that the charges to the railways for using the tunnel should have shot up by £100 million per annum now that there is one monopolistic concessionaire rather than three bidders. Whatever the rights and wrongs of the matter, I am sure that my right hon. Friend the new Secretary of State for Transport is far too wily a Cabinet Minister to fall back on the old slogan that these are matters of commercial confidentiality. They are no such thing.
The taxpayer is already forking out £400 million for British Rail's rolling stock, and apparently now has to fork out between £140 million and £200 million a year for British Rail's annual subscription for the use of the tunnel. If the railways have to pay Eurotunnel £100 million a year more than they would have had to pay Euororoute or Channel Expressway, that amounts to an additional £5 billion of public money going out of the Exchequer during the lifetime of the concession. That is surely a matter of the highest public interest for the Treasury, Parliament and everyone else. We must investigate that aspect of the monopoly to ensure that the Eurotunnel consortium is not obtaining some privileged subsidy from the state railways.
Although I am concerned about the privileges of Eurotunnel, my biggest worry relates to the future pattern of our trade with France. Here, I suggest, lies the real threat to our national interest. I fear that we may have already conceded game, set and match to the French. Let us consider for a moment the British cross-Channel transport industry. It is a success story. Measured by revenue, 72 per cent. is in the hands of British ferry or hovercraft companies, with only 12 per cent. being controlled by the French and the remainder by the Belgians and others. The logic behind those figures is that Britain needs more access to Europe than Europe needs to Britain—70 per cent. of the cross-Channel cars, coaches and passengers are British and the majority of freight is transported by British lorries. Unfortunately, most of the advantages of that profitable, labour-intensive supremacy in the cross-Channel transport industry will be lost on the day that the Channel tunnel opens.
The concession agreement provides that 50 per cent. of the tunnel's revenue and profit go to France. Therefore, whatever slice of the cross-Channel traffic the tunnel takes—and according to its merchant bankers the break-even point is 66·3 per cent. of cars—France's market share will leap overnight, at a stroke, from 12 to 50 per cent. of the market—an uplift of 38 per cent., whereas Britain's will go down from 72 to 50 per cent. a drop of 22 per cent. What a great victory for Britain's national interest.
French ascendency will not stop after seizing a larger share of the cross-Channel market. I have read a copy of Plan Transmanche, the state protocol signed between the French Government and the Channel regional area Nord Pas de Calais. It is a document that every hon. Member who cares about this issue should read. His first reaction will be one of admiration, but the delayed reaction will be one of fear of its consequences to Britain. Plan Transmanche is one of the greatest examples of pork-barrel political funding since the days of the Marshall plan.
The French Government have decided to make what they call an exceptional investment effort into the Nord-Pas de Calais region. Its features include a 3 billion francs investment in roads and motorways to the ports and tunnel,


a 5 billion francs investment in linking the coastline with the national electrified high speed network, new training schools and institutes, a new high technology education centre, an aquaculture centre, a European marine observatory, large grants for the hotel industry, big action contracts for the coastal resorts, a housing programme, an urban development programme, a campaign for promoting tourism, a major environmental protection programme and a whole range of grants and incentives to attract business to France.

Mr. Adley: Splendid.

Mr. Aitken: My hon. Friend may say that, but the purpose is to attract business to France——

Mr. Adley: We should do the same.

Mr. Aitken: What hope is there of that? That programme will grab so much of the investment action that Kent—and our country generally—will look like a poor little churchmouse by comparison. It is an area of great concern, that should be considered by the Select Committee.

Mr. Faulds: Does the hon. Gentleman not think that it is incumbent upon the Government to publish an English version of the document to which he referred, so that all hon. Members—some of us speak fluent French—and some less fluent French-and the less enlightened of our colleagues are aware of this enormous challenge? France is in it, as France is always in it, to get the biggest cut of the cake. It is only fair that the Government should make hon. Members aware of that by publishing an English version of that document.

Mr. Aitken: I agree with the hon. Gentleman that it is incumbent upon the Government at least to place in the Library this important state protocol of France.
The most serious implications of the plan are for Britain's ports. What emerges from that and other pieces of evidence is that the French have again planned for their ports, and this will undoubtedly have a devastating effect on our ports. Under the Plan Transmanche alone, the French will spend 52 million francs modernising Dunkirk, 73 million francs modernising Boulogne, they will add two deep-water berths at Calais, and in other French ports as far away as Marseilles, Toulon and Le Havre even bigger port modernisation programmes are under way. All that is a deliberate strategy.

Mr. Adley: My hon. Friend said a few moments ago that on the day the tunnel opened Britain's market share would fall from 72 to 50 per cent. Is he assuming that on the day the tunnel opens there will be a 100 per cent. traffic transfer, that all the ferries will close down on that day and that all traffic will go through the tunnel? If that is likely to be the case, why is Townsend Thoresen buying new ships?

Mr. Aitken: In his eagerness to intervene, my hon. Friend was not listening to what I said. I said that Britain's share of the Channel tunnel traffic would immediately drop to 50 per cent.

Mr. Robert Hughes: I entirely accept the point made by the hon. Member for Thanet, South (Mr. Aitken) about the French gain plan. It will be a gain plan for the French ports and the French railway system. However, instead of

simply cavilling against the French, why does he not ask the Government to institute their own gain plan? That would make more sense.

Mr. Aitken: That is a perfectly sensible option, and the British Government should be asked to spend money on that scale. Even if they were to do that, why should we give away what we already have? My main anxiety about the French plan is that it is designed to seize a very large slice of Britain's ports' business as soon as the tunnel is opened.
At present all cargo coming into this country must enter via a British port. That is self-evident. However, from 1993 onwards a cargo ship from the far east or South America will have an alternative option for a cargo destined for Britain. It might be more convenient, cheaper and quicker even, with some inducements, to offload that cargo at Marseilles and have it shipped through to Britain via the high speed rail network and the tunnel.
The British Ports Association is deeply worried about that. It has forecast that 40 per cent. of its import trade could be lost if the French gain plan succeeds, as it undoubtedly will unless dramatic measures—for which the Opposition Front Bench are asking—are implemented in this country. If they are not implemented, the British Ports Association is correct to suggest that all its 175,000 jobs may be at risk. Not one port in this country will be unaffected and many will be devastated. I hope that we are still enough of a seafaring nation—and I hope that the Government recognise this—to realise that the threat to our ports and our maritime industry will be an explosive political and election issue in the months ahead.
When I started out on what was originally a somewhat lonely road of outright opposition to the Channel tunnel, I did so largely for constituency reasons. I have said nothing about my constituency tonight. However, like my hon. Friend the Member for Thanet, North (Mr. Gale) I passionately believe that a deep and wounding wrong will be inflicted on east Kent if the tunnel is built unless dramatic new safeguards are written into the Bill.
In the long war of parliamentary attrition that lies ahead of the Bill, Kent will fight its corner, and will fight it well. We will somehow or other take care of ourselves, even if the hybrid Bill procedure has to become the longest marathon in parliamentary history. Something is at stake here that is ten times more important than the interests of Kent, and 5,000 times more important than the interests of the Eurotunnel consortium.
The gravamen of my charge against the Government is that in great haste and in poor judgment, they are hooked on a Bill which is not in the national interest and which will destroy a great deal of our maritime success. The Bill is more friendless than one might think from some of the speeches in this debate. The Bill will grow in unpopularity as understanding of its implications grows in the country. I will oppose the Bill tonight, and I will continue to oppose it.

Sir Anthony Meyer: My hon. Friend the Member for Thanet, South (Mr. Aitken) has made a powerful case, but I believe that there is an element of whistling in the dark about it. The debate, with the exception of two lengthy, moaning speeches from the Opposition, more truly reflects the feelings of the country about the project.
I wish to speak unusually briefly tonight. However, I cannot begin without paying a tribute to my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Transport. He made one of the ablest ministerial speeches that I have heard in the Chamber for a long time, and it bodes well for his success in his new post.
I speak as an unabashed supporter of the Channel tunnel, and not simply for constituency reasons, although I believe that even my constituency, far away though it is from the tunnel, will benefit because I believe that the project will be of enormous benefit to British Rail, as my hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Northfield (Mr. King) explained in his eloquent speech. I am in favour of the tunnel because it will read to an expansion of trade and that must, by definition, be of benefit to this country because this, of all industrial countries, is more dependent on external trade than any other. To moan, as several of my hon. Friends have moaned, that an expansion of trade would necessarily be to our disadvantage is pure defeatism.
I do not want primarily to speak as a supporter of the tunnel. I wish to make a brief contribution as the chairman of the Franco-British Parliamentary Relations Committee and to say a few words about the importance of the project to relations between Britain and France.
It is only natural that hon. Members, properly representing their constituency interests, should worry about whether northern France should receive more benefit from the tunnel than Kent or some other area. We should not forget how badly northern France has suffered from its over-dependence on traditional heavy industries—steel, textiles and now worked-out coal mines. However, to concentrate on these issues is to distract attention from the economic, social and cultural benefits which will accrue to both countries from easier, faster and, above all, more certain means of access between our countries. The tunnel not only facilitates these contacts; it symbolises them. It symbolises a closer relationship between this country and our nearest neighbour.
If we were to allow this project to fail for a second time—the Labour Government ruthlessly cut it out in 1975 — we would undoubtedly do great lasting harm to Anglo-French relations. In fact, we would do something more serious, something which far outweighs the dismal consequences foreseen by my hon. Friend the Member for Thanet, South: we would call into question our reliability as a partner in any international enterprise. If, on the other hand, we complete the enterprise and take it through its complicated parliamentary procedures, it will undoubtedly contribute to a strengthening of our relations with France.
I know that we often quarrel with our nearest neighbour and our closest relation on the Continent. Families do quarrel. None the less, history proves that when relations between France and Britain are bad things go badly for Europe. When relations between France and Britain are good, things go well for Europe. This project is important to Britain, to France and to the rest of Europe and I support it with enthusiasm.

Mr. David Crouch: It is a pleasure to follow my hon. Friend the Member for Clwyd, North-West (Sir A. Meyer), who speaks with such experience and knowledge of the French and of our alliance with the French in our hearts and minds and in our trade and defence. It is wrong for some hon. Members like my

honourable and dear Friend the Member for Thanet, South (Mr. Aitken)—he now has that description from me and it will be with him for ever—to describe the fear that they have about the French.
What is wrong with my dear and hon. Friend the Member for Thanet, South? Was he born in the Napoleonic era? Is he still hiding behind the Martello towers? Something about my dear hon. Friend makes me believe that he is afraid of the French. He seems to be frightened that they will come marching here. I understand that the French were asked whether they were afraid that the tunnel would provide the Red Army with access to Britain. When asked what they would do about it, the French had a practical answer. They said that they would charge them double.
There has not been a great deal of interest in the debate tonight in this greatest engineering project in Europe for a century. I suppose that that is because it is now taken for granted. I am sorry about that. The House has been thinly attended. As I look across for those great Europeans, the Social Democrats, I see none. I look for the Liberals, but I see none. However, we have had a speech from the Liberal party's transport spokesman tonight. I welcome that because the Liberals are wholeheartedly in favour of Europe, of our being in the Community, and of a fixed link, and so is the SDP. Let us put that on the record, because in some parts of the country, not least in Kent, in Folkestone, Hythe and Shepway, they sometimes talk about being against the fixed link. There are no parties more keen or united in the House than those two parties to have the fixed link, and that must be fully understood.
What is the motivation of those who feel so strongly against the fixed link and the Bill tonight? I respect hon. Members who have strong views. I respect my dear and hon. Friend the Member for Thanet, South, and [respect my hon. Friend the Member for Thanet, North (Mr. Gale), who is not in his place at the moment, for their views. I know why they hold them. I am their neighbour in Canterbury and I know why there is a fear of the fixed link in the Channel ports of Dover, Folkestone and Ramsgate. Those ports will suffer a loss of employment over the years when the tunnel is built and working and providing transport under rather than over the sea. There will be a loss of jobs. Of course, there will also be job gains, but those who work on boats and who serve the ferries fear that they will lose jobs, and it is admitted that they will. I understand that.
I also understand those who are against Europe. My dear and hon. Friend the Member for Thanet, South, in his anti-Napoleonic way, spoke of being against our connection with Europe and France. He spoke about the great development that the French will provide in the Pas de Calais in the Nord region. I have known of that for years. I talked to the mayor of Calais 13 years ago in 1972 or 1973 about that very question. The French are not encumbered by public inquiries or by having to ask constituents what should or could be done. They just go ahead and do it, whether it is a nuclear power station or a collection of nuclear power stations or a vast Sellafield at Cap de la Hague. They do not ask anyone; they just pay through the nose and do these things. They say, "Take it or leave it."
In a way, the French still have a Napoleonic way of doing things. We would say that it is not entirely democratic. I prefer our way. On Tuesday night we debated the need for full democratic rights to be given to


those who will oppose the Bill, and I fully support that. I shall be seeking later tonight to support the demand that more opportunities should be given for such protests from those who are genuinely against this. But to those who oppose Britain being linked to Europe I can only say that it is old-fashioned. It is born out of a fear. I respect the views of the right hon. Members for Lewisham, Deptford (Mr. Silkin) and for Bethnal Green and Stepney (Mr. Shore), who are against our connection, political and economic, with Europe. They have always said so. They have argued their case succinctly and well over the years, as has my hon. Friend the Member for Thanet, South. So we must say that that is why they do not like it and write that into the record.
But that is not the Government's policy, nor the policy of the British people who, by referendum, accepted that we should be in Europe. All I would say about the Bill is that we are in Europe and we are growing more and more in Europe. Sixty-four per cent. of our exports are going to Europe, so we must give ourselves a greater opportunity to pursue that course and enlarge it. That is essential. To call the link the lifeblood of the British people and the economy would not be an understatement. That is why I support it. As I said the other night, I have supported the principle of the fixed link through thick and thin, and it has been very thick in my constituency.
In east Kent there is a strong fear, not of our being connected to Europe politically or economically, but of having a fixed link which will cause an environmental disturbance and all that the environs of the tunnel will mean — the marshalling yards, the extension of the roads, the engineering activity, the building and the removal of the spoil. I live nearer that part than my constituents—a good 12 miles nearer. I am not worried, but I can understand them being worried, particularly those in the Folkestone-Cheriton area, because they will have it on their doorstep.
I would say only that the future for Britain can be bright for this connection. I look to the future, beyond my lifetime. I am looking to the next century and thinking of my children and grandchildren and their future. I get a warm welcome from schoolchildren in my constituency for the idea of the tunnel. It is a pleasure to talk to sixth formers today. They say that they support me on this, but their parents do not. I can understand that. Who wants several million cubic feet of spoil going through the small narrow roads of Kent?
The Bill is designed not only to build a tunnel but to build it correctly in 21st century manner. I hope that when my hon. Friend the Minister replies to the debate he will tell us something of his consultations through his committee in Kent and the progress he is making on all aspects, but on one aspect in particular about which my constituents have a genuine worry, and that is the environmental impact.
I agree that areas of high unemployment in Thanet, the Thanet towns and Herne Bay and in Whitstable in my constituency, where unemployment is 22 per cent.—in Thanet it is 27 per cent.—there is a fear that with the tunnel built and the wonderful motorway connection to London and the north and the west and the M25 that traffic coming out of the tunnel will come off the train and shoot

at 70 or 80 mph out of Kent, bypassing them and leaving them derelict without the opportunity of the employment that will be generated around the tunnel.
The Government must do something, working with the county council, to provide road connections for the Thanet towns, Herne Bay and Whitstable. They must be such that people living there have a proper connection with the tunnel and Ashford. That will enable them to have the employment that such a crossing as this will produce. When London bridge was built, London became a city. Wherever a river is crossed is the juncture where trade begins and communication is possible. This will produce in Kent in 20 or 50 years' time a great opportunity for modern industrial and commercial developments. Of that I am sure. How much unemployment do we see around Gatwick today? It is virtually nil. Industry has grown around Horsham and Crawley because of the communications that Gatwick has provided, and so it will be around Folkestone in the future, but not at once.
I hope that my hon. Friend the Minister will bear in wo wmind my thoughts about the understandable concern of the people in Kent about the environmental impact and the concern in other parts of the country where people feel that there should be job opportunities for them and that they should be able to get near the job opportunities.
I am not one who has a fear of the French. I am a competitor of the French. I am prepared to have this link across to the Pas de Calais, but I do not expect the French to come here and take command of our market. Nor do I expect us to go through the tunnel and take command of the French market. There will be a bit of each, a bit of competition. It will be fierce, but it will also be fair because the communication will be two-way. Such two-way communication offers us a great future.
Our duty in the House is to ensure that we provide a great future for the country, which will help Scotland, the north-west, the north-east and Wales as well. The direct rail communication will do that. The opportunity of increased trade will regenerate industry in the north, which is so necessary. There are great opportunities. However, we, as representatives of the people, have a duty to see that not only are their views heard and represented, but that something is done to ensure that in this age we build a great engineering project in a 21st century manner and not in the sprawling, disregarding way of the 19th century.

Mr. Andrew Faulds: I am happy to follow my hon. Friend the Member for Canterbury (Mr. Crouch). I use that term because he and I work closely in a whole range of areas. His judgment is infallible when he deals with practical measures on foreign affairs and most domestic issues. But when he becomes theoretic and visionary I am afraid that his judgment slips and his decisions are often pretty misguided. Although there were happy passages tonight about expectations of what we would be doing for our children and grandchildren, I felt that his arguments were not quite based on Dover cliff and the solidity that that area suggests.
I want to take a very different point of view from my hon. Friend the Member for Canterbury, and there are a number of reasons for doing so. Because of the damaging implications of Government policies and because of neglect over many years by different Governments, we have a massively decaying infrastructure. We all know that is true, because it hits every one of our constituencies.


And yet we are prepared to see massive amounts of private money going into a totally unnecessary enterprise, such as the tunnel project. Why cannot the Government, particularly a Government who work so closely with British and international business men, give some guidance to those gentlemen who are eager to spend their money not on the improvement of the infrastructure of Britain, but on the monopoly exercise, which the hon. Member for Thanet, South (Mr. Aitken) was talking about, to their own advantage? Why can the Government, supposedly committed to recreating Britain, not tempt those gentlemen, by various means, into putting their money where it is needed—the decaying sewers, roads, housing, and hospitals in Britain? It is a total misjudgment of how resources should be used.
I mentioned the fact that it is not necessary. We have been talking about this silly idea for years. One of the Labour Government's best judgments in their last period of office was cancelling the damn silly thing. They made a sensible judgment and withdrew what they had launched—the building of a two-line tunnel.
We do not need to travel across the Channel any faster. Aeroplanes by the thousand do the trip every day. We have moved into the Concorde era. If one gets into one of those planes, one arrives 20 minutes before one left. It is ridiculous to think that we will need to travel faster to France to improve our relations and trade.

Mr. Crouch: That is a Luddite view.

Mr. Faulds: Very Luddite, because the benefits will be not to Britain but to France. That argument was extremely well put by the hon. Member for Thanet, South. Everybody has to declare in this matter, "I am not against the French." When we are members of Europe, do we need to make the point that we are not against the French? I happen to be rather more pro-British than pro-French, but nobody could be more committed to our links with France than I am. I am a member of the executive of the Franco-British Council which was set up on the initiative of two fairly distinguished gentlemen, an ex-Prime Minister, the right hon. Member for Old Bexley and Sidcup (Mr. Heath), and President Pompidou, to improve relations with France. The hon. Member for Clwyd, North-West (Sir A. Meyer) is a fellow member of the Council. On this issue we can both be utterly pro-French but disagree profoundly about where the advantages of the exercise will lie. They will accrue not to this tired country under this disastrous Government, but to a French Government who know what time of day it is and are prepared to put Government money into seeing an improvement in every aspect of French life.
One matter which I do not think has been much discussed much tonight——

Mr. Adley: The hon. Gentleman has not been here most of the time.

Mr. Faulds: I have not been here because there are other parliamentary duties. I have been at an extremely interesting meeting tonight mourning——

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Harold Walker): Order. We can do without an explanation of the other meeting. The hon. Gentleman should stick to the matter before the house.

Mr. Faulds: It was a meeting to do with parliamentary matters. Simply, it was — I see your beady eye, Mr. Deputy Speaker, and I shall withdraw any comment on my activities of an hour or so ago.
My third consideration—an aspect that I do not think has been discussed tonight — is whether, in the calculations of these business men, the risk of danger has been taken into account. International terrorism will not go away even if the British, French, German and American Governments, who could play the biggest role in this, do something to remove the main reason for international terrorism—the denial of Palestinian rights. Even if and when that is put right, international terrorism will not subside. It has become part of the international political world.
Weapons will get smaller, but be no less effective. There will come a time, unfortunately probably in our lifetime, when there will be manual atom bombs which can be carried about and detonated. The damage that some misguided idiot could cause with those developments in the confines of the Channel tunnel are unthinkable. It would be a disaster. The thousands of people who would be affected by such an organised accident would be catastrophic and unbearable to contemplate. It would be ridiculous to dismiss that danger as something unrealistic. It is not unrealistic. Anybody who can think otherwise in the present political climate and in the light of the appalling developments in international terrorism is not facing reality when we discuss the construction of the tunnel.
The fouth and most important argument why we should not contemplate this exercise is the damage that it will do to the regions. None of us beyond Watford needs to argue any more about the appalling effect of the industrial policies of this Government on every one of the regions. We shall simply magnify that damage. There will be a concentration of industrial, commercial and every other activity from which Britain makes her living in the south-east of England, even more than it is already concentrated. We shall deprive the regions of developments that could take place if the moneys were more sensibly spent on other aspects of the infrastructure. It is a dishonest argument to pretend that the regions will benefit from this development. It is not true.
The traffic problems will be terrible. Those of us who drive round this corner of these lovely islands know that the traffic problem is becoming worse and worse. One can see how much traffic has increased on the M25, the north circular road and other roads in the south. If it is further increased in the way suggested by this exercise, the roads will become blocked. It is a ridiculous abdication of responsibility on the Government's part that no study has apparently been made of this implication, or, if it has been made, it has not been made public. If the Department has made an examination of what is likely to happen to the traffic flow and traffic congestion once the tunnel is in operation, can hon. Members be made aware of it? Can we be told what the actualities of the damage will be? The regional implications and the traffic implications are the worst aspects of this silly enterprise.
I had not meant to be here tonight because earlier in the day I felt a little flu-ey and I thought, "This is a Thursday and I want to return to the bosom of my family in Warwickshire."

Mr. Roger King: What about Smethwick?

Mr. Faulds: Smethwick is my constituency, where I serve like a parish priest, and Stratford is my home where I go back to the arms of my family.
I had contemplated a happy evening with my feet up, supper brought on a tray, and the usual devotions to which, happily, I am heir. I rang my wife to say that I should be catching what is now, under the appalling new arrangements of the midland region of the railways, the 7.27 or the 7.01. The service has been wrecked over the past few years and the latest timetable, which is six weeks overdue, will be even worse than before in providing the services that the passengers need. However, I diverge and I must not offend Mr. Deputy Speaker. I must keep to the point.
When I rang my wife at tea time to say that I would be catching the 7 whatever it is, she said, "Oh no, you won't. If it is the Channel tunnel vote, you stay and vote." I said, "No, darling, I want to come home." She said, "Wait a minute." She had some friends round for tea — by misjudgment, we live in a very Tory area of Stratford-on-Avon—but not one lady there said, "Yes, let him vote for the tunnel." My wife's advice was, "Everybody here says that it is an unnecessary, silly idea. Stay and vote against it." That is why I have had to impose myself on the House for the past few minutes. I shall be voting against this nonsense.

Mr. Roger Moate: I am alarmed to find myself, probably for the first time, in agreement with many points made by the hon. Member for Warley, East (Mr. Faulds). I am so alarmed that I am almost thinking that perhaps I am on the wrong point. I was glad that he made a couple of points in response to my hon. Friend—do I say my hon. and dear Friend and neighbour—the Member for Canterbury (Mr. Crouch). My hon. Friend does a disservice to the debate by introducing into it such ideological considerations as he does and by suggesting that the tunnel is a symbol of a link with Europe, and that those who are opposed to it are, as he went on to say, afraid of the French or against links with Europe.
Let us be clear that we have immensely close links with Europe. Many of us are passionately attached to our association, the closest possible association, with France. Whatever one's view about the European Common Market, which is something fundamentally different from the continent of Europe—these trading arrangements are not identical with the geographical expression of Europe—we are in favour of the freest possible trade with Europe and the removal of obstacles to trade with Europe. I wish that my hon. Friend the Member for Canterbury would leave alone his obsessional attachment to the tunnel as though it were a symbol or as part of the European Communities Act. It is not. What he sees as a romantic adventure can be seen in contrast with the valid, real and powerful points made by my hon. Friend the Member for Thanet, South (Mr. Aitken).

Mr. Crouch: Powerful Luddites.

Mr. Moate: My hon. Friend is again making an emotional point about Luddites.

Mr. Crouch: It is in The Times.

Mr. Moate: I saw the article in The Times, but it was as wrong then as it is wrong now. It is offensive to use the term Luddism to contrast his idea of a tunnel, which is

hardly modern technology, with the shipping services provided by the ferry companies. Luddism was against progress. Is my hon. Friend saying that the modern ferries, which are a tremendous success story in this country, are so outdated, old-fashioned and inadequate that we must use the term Luddism? That is offensive to the companies which operate the ferries because they have achieved quite remarkable results in recent years. Perhaps my hon. Friend has not seen or been on a ferry in recent years. He talks as if he has not.
We are not talking about a symbolic attachment to the continent of Europe. We are talking about alternative transport modes. We are talking about the contrast between a highly proficient ferry service, which provides a great variety of services around the south and east coasts of England, and a Channel tunnel which in itself can alter quite dramatically the nature of our county. I am not ashamed to sound parochial in that respect. In presenting the case for Kent, I believe that I am also speaking from the national point of view.
Over the past century at least, there has been immense maritime investment in the ports of the south and east coasts of England. The country can be proud of that.

Mr. Crouch: My hon. Friend suggested that I have not travelled on a ferry for a long time. I have certainly been on sea ferries and the hovercraft which is called an aircraft. I think that both are old-fashioned and inefficient ways to travel. Very often they do not keep to time schedules because of rough weather. It is as simple as that. A more up-to-date method of travelling would be by way of a tunnel or bridge. I ask my hon. Friend, who happens to be my Member of Parliament, to bear that in mind.

Mr. Moate: When all our constituents, including those of my hon. Friend, say that the trains run on time, we may have a fairer analogy.
I turn to two points raised earlier by my hon. Friends. My dear hon. Friend and constituent the Member for Canterbury said that we are afraid of the French. There is no suggestion that we are afraid of the French. But we must recognise the prospect of unfair competition from northern France. That is the fundamental point.
As soon as my hon. Friend the Member for Thanet, South listed the many benefits that the French are seeking to give to their industry in north France, hon. Members on both sides of the House said, "We must do the same." I ask my right hon. and hon. Friends on the Government Front Bench and Members on the Opposition Front Bench whether anyone seriously suggests that either a Conservative Government or a Labour Government would pour into the south of England all the industrial and regional grants and infrastructure investment that go into many of the development areas of this country. We know that that is not realistic. It is fair to ask my right hon. and hon. Friends on the Front Bench, how do we propose to deal with the problem?
The north of France is recognised as an area requiring major regional investment; the south-east of England is not. There is the prospect of unfair competition, but no one has spelt out how we intend to deal with it. I know what I would like as a very minimum for my constituency. I would like more investment in roads such as the M2—the widening of it—and the dualling of the A249 to the port of Sheerness. I would like enterprise zone status for the Isle of Sheppey which suffers high unemployment and


could be adversely affected because of its immensely successful and efficient ferry service. I invite my hon. Friends to say that we could have all that, but realistically I do not believe that any British Government could match the French at their game.
An immensely valid consideration which brings the debate into perspective is the speed and handling of customs formalities. One of the major complaints of business men and private travellers is the delays that occur at our ports. With the prospect of the Channel tunnel, the Government are suddenly offering facilities for the chunnel that will simplify customs formalities and reduce delays. Simplification of customs formalities at our airports and on the ferries would produce a greater saving of time, especially for hauliers, than any saving that would result from traffic passing through the tunnel. We could introduce simplified formalities now and the result would be much greater savings in time and a considerable increase in efficiency in freight handling. The present delays constitute a considerable problem, especially at Sheerness, and the same can he said for other ports.
It will be evident that I am entirely opposed to the Bill, but it would be churlish not to recognise that it is a far better proposition than the one which we faced in the early 1970s. We must recognise that the project does not involve public money, and that is a distinct improvement on the previous scheme. We should recognise that the rail-only link is probably the best of all the options in terms of the environmental impact on Kent. It will probably inflict the least damage on the ferry ports. It would be churlish of those of us who oppose the Bill not to recognise the engineering excitement of a challenge of this sort. We should accept that the tunnel will be a great engineering enterprise.
Having said that, I still say that we in Kent are entitled to put to the rest of the country the problems that will face us. Kent will face the harsh reality, whereas many others will regard the tunnel as a symbol, an abstract idea and a theoretical link with Europe. It will be a harsh reality for the people of Kent, the only community that will have to face the impact of the project on their homes, their farmland and the roads in their county.
People have been talking naively and over-optimistically about the amount of freight that will be carried through the tunnel, especially by long-distance trains. The prospect for long-distance freight haulage are much more limited than that for which some have allowed. The proposed Channel link, like the one that was put forward in the 1970s, is essentially a rolling motorway. That is its main claim to financial viability. Most industrialists, except for those who happen to engage in major bulk deliveries or who are located in the right places, will continue to use their lorries. The lorries will still be driven down to a south coast terminal to cross the Channel by means of the rolling motorway.
Not all lorry operators will use the M20. They will not all confine themselves to the road that the Government believe is the right one for the tunnel. They will flow along every major road and all the tributary roads throughout the area. The greatest environmental damage to be inflicted upon Kent will be caused by the many and heavier lorries that will travel to the tunnel. I suspect that the rail lobby will be greatly disappointed by the increase in long-distance traffic volumnes.
The tunnel has been presented as something that will offer faster, easier, more reliable and cheaper communications. That is not true. None of those claims is valid. How much cheaper will it be? The answer is a few per cent. Is that really worth the sacrifices that Kent will have to make in lost jobs at the ports and damage to maritime interests? Are slightly cheaper prices worth such sacrifices? I should have thought not. The saving in time will be an hour at the very most. Is it worth the price to save one hour when so many other considerations make journeys so much slower? The tunnel will not offer significantly faster travel to the continent and it will not be significantly cheaper. Reliability remains to be seen.
If more damage is done to the ferry industry than is forecast, we may end up with a monopoly situation. Therefore, one industrial dispute on that tunnel could suddenly mean that many potential travellers would find themselves without an alternative means of transport. We could become increasingly dependent upon an increasingly unreliable and neo-monopolistic form of transport. On those grounds, the project does not seem appealing.
If the forecasts are over-optimistic — and I believe them to be so—the only way in which the tunnel will pay its way is by a price war. If a price war takes place, the ferries will be pushed out of business. All the fears that we have been putting forward would be realised and we would be worse off.
For all those reasons, I believe that the people of Kent are right to spell out the harsh realities and to say that they do not want the Bill. They do not believe that the case for the project has been proved. I do not believe that the quality of life of the British people will be enhanced. If one asks people—in or out of Kent—whether they wish to travel by tunnel, they will say no. Basically, people would rather stay on the surface and travel by sea than go in a tunnel.
Those who are in favour of the project either support it for ideological reasons or are members of the rail lobby, which is immensely enthusiastic about it. If we ask ordinary people whether they feel that their quality of life will be enhanced, I think that they will say no.
It is a privately funded project and to that extent it is fine. It is a better project than it might have been because it is a rail tunnel. We in Parliament are being asked whether we think it is a good thing for Britain and whether it will enhance the quality of life. We are entitled to say yes or no. I assuredly say no. It is not good for this country, it will not make it a better place, and we should reject the Bill.

Mr. Keith Speed: Having listened to my hon. Friend the Member for Faversham (Mr. Moate) and other hon. Members who have spoken, I am bound to say that if this country's economic survival depends upon the optimism that they have shown, we are going down the plughole in a big way.
The Channel tunnel is the biggest construction project that has been attempted in Europe, perhaps the biggest this century. It offers all sorts of things for the country, economically and environmentally. We have heard hon. Members on both sides of the House take the worst case in each area and argue that the whole thing is desperately bad and wrong. They believe that we should throw up our


hands in horror and leave the whole thing to the French, who will make a great go of Calais, and that we cannot compete in Kent. I absolutely reject that pessimism.
One argument that has been advanced against the project is that it will exceed its estimated cost and not be completed in time. The British civil engineering industry has an unrivalled reputation throughout the world. Terminal 4 was completed within cost and within time, and the various motorway schemes and the fantastic new airport that has been completed in the Falklands bear witness to my contention. We can do the job, and no doubt we will do it, because, after all, it is a medium-technology scheme.
My hon. Friend the Member for Thanet, South (Mr. Aitken) argued that, because the new road and rail improvements will be associated with the tunnel, public money will be used to help a private scheme. That is a fallacious argument. When the M20, the M2 and the Lydden diversion to the A2 were being built, I did not hear my hon. Friend or anyone else argue that that was helping the ferry operators. Yet the justification for those routes was the ferry traffic going to Folkestone and Dover. Whether or not the fixed link is developed, these improvements are needed, because what has not yet come out in this debate is that within the next 14 to 15 years there will be at least a doubling of heavy goods vehicles coming to the Channel ports and a substantial increase in passenger traffic.
Much has been made of traffic forecasts. The one thing that we can say with certainty about Department of Transport forecasts is that they are always wrong and always on the low side. Hon. Members need only look at the forecasts for the M25, the M6, the M1 or any motorway they like to see that. The Department always gets it wrong on the low side. My right hon. Friend is right not to publish the forecasts because the Department will get them wrong on the low side. I challenge hon. Members to tell me when a traffic forecast of the Department of Transport has been optimistic. They cannot do so, and they know that to be true.
Much has been made of the Merchant Navy. I put my reputation on the line on naval and maritime matters five years ago. If I thought that ferries would be destroyed by the scheme, there is no way that I could vote for it tonight, but I do not believe that that will happen. It is in consumers' and customers' interests that there should be a proper mix of traffic. Ferries, hovercraft and jets will operate, as well as the tunnel and aircraft. I agree that on the passenger side short-haul airlines will lose out, but that has environmental advantages for those who live near airports, not least those near Crawley and Heathrow.
Some hon. Members have damned British Rail with faint praise, but during the 18 years that I have been a Member of Parliament I have received a plethora of letters from divers environmental groups arguing that we should transfer more and more traffic from road to rail, and that more and more passengers should leave their cars and travel by train. I agree with them, and this is our one big chance to do just that.
Last December I spoke about the possibility of 365,000 lorries a year coming off the roads—the equivalent of going on to rail—which is 1,000 a day. As the hon. Member for Isle of Wight (Mr. Ross) and others have pointed out, I was pessimistic. I believe that at least 1,500

lorries a day and perhaps more could come off the roads. This will depend a great deal on British Rail's drive, marketing, and ability to seize its opportunities. The House should back British Rail, not sneer at it and knock it, as we so often do. British Rail has a chance to link into the biggest, most up-to-date rail system in the world, the European rail system, and if we believe in the environment and in getting traffic off the roads and on to the railways, we should give British Rail every possible encouragement.
I wish to raise a local matter that has considerable implications. Many of my constituents are bothered that the tunnel may be used as an excuse to build more and more houses, especially in Ashford, which will benefit from the creation of new jobs. We have the international station, the freight transport terminal and other facilities, so many jobs will be created in the Ashford area. My constituents and others in Kent fear that the Weald, the Downs and elsewhere will be covered in houses to provide homes for people employed in those jobs. I understand the fear of my hon. Friend the Member for Thanet, South of my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Dover (Mr. Rees) and of my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Folkestone and Hythe (Mr. Howard), that there could well be employment difficulties in the short and medium-term, because there will undoubtedly be a downturn in ferry traffic and dock opportunities, thus increasing unemployment.
We should consider south-east Kent as a whole for employment and housing. It makes no sense to build more and more houses on good agricultural land in the Ashford area to cater for the incumbents of the new jobs when nearby constituencies face increased unemployment among people who are reasonably and decently housed. Communications are improving and there will be good road systems. Ashford to Dover will be a 20 to 25-minute drive, and Ashford to Folkestone will take 15 minutes. I agree that communications to Thanet should also be improved. The Committee should consider the area as a whole, so that we can match houses with jobs. We should not take a narrow parochial view and say, "I want all the jobs and houses in Ashford." That would not be a sensible use of resources or a sensible way to proceed.
On 5 December 1973, when moving the Second Reading of that Channel Tunnel Bill, the Minister said:
Generations have talked about the tunnel, dreamed about the tunnel, argued about the tunnel. There comes a time when the talking has to stop and the aspirations have to be turned into achievements. This Bill is a significant step in doing just that."—[Official Report. 5 December 1973; Vol. 865, c. 1310.]
That was said 12½ years ago by me, as the Minister on the Bill. Now, 12½ years later, perhaps it is time that we started to do something about it.

Mr. Peter Snape: In some ways, the views expressed in this debate have been as entrenched as those expressed in all the other debates, going back as far as the 1973 debate, which has just been referred to by the hon. Member for Ashford (Mr. Speed). Even if I was the greatest orator in the House—and I certainly am not — I would have great difficulty in persuading any hon. Member that his view on this issue was wrong. Consequently, I shall not even attempt to do so.
I congratulate the Secretary of State on his appointment and welcome him to his new post. I am afraid that the


precedents are not good for those who move from the Treasury to the Department of Transport, but I hope that the right hon. Gentleman will be able to overcome that hurdle, and that there will at least be some rational dialogue between the two parties on this important topic. Time will tell whether I am being over-optimistic. Although I have the honour to speak on behalf of my party, I should make my position clear. In 1974, I supported the Labour Government's intention to build a Channel tunnel. Indeed, I voted against my own party when, in my view, it foolishly decided to cancel the project in 1975. But I got my just deserts, because I was made a Whip inside a week. That at least taught me a lesson about voting against my own party. But I hold the same views now as I held then. For various reasons, which I shall come to, I believe that of the schemes submitted to this Government, the rail-only scheme was the right one to choose.
However, if we accepted the views so graphically and even luridly expressed by my hon. Friend the Member for Warley, East (Mr. Faulds) and did nothing, what would happen to cross-channel traffic? If we did nothing, would we please those Members of Parliament who represent constituencies in Kent who, quite properly, have reservations about the scheme? If the project was abandoned, the number of motor cars and heavy goods vehicles going to and from the continent would increase year by year, and life would become even less tolerable for those constituents whom Kent Members have quite properly sought to defend. Traffic to and from the continent would increase, just as it has done during the past decade or so. Doing nothing is not a recipe for a better environment for Kent of for better transport links between this country and Europe. The hon. Member for Ashford was the most recent hon. Member to point out that a rail Channel tunnel will persuade those who use other modes of transport to use trains.
Recently I was in Paris, talking to the Anglo-French chamber of commerce about the project. Those people who travel backwards and forwards the whole time were virtually unanimous that anything was better than the present system. The organisation that is somewhat fancifully entitled Flexilink has behaved deplorably in the past few months with its campaign of non-stop denigration and its pretence that the present system is the best way of moving passengers and freight across the Channel. That is just not so. Whatever our views of the project, all hon. Members will concede that it is a nightmare to try to sail from Dover on. say, a bank holiday. Under the system that some hon. Members wish to preserve, traffic at bank holidays is frequently backed up as far as the constituency of the hon. Member for Canterbury (Mr. Crouch). Should we seek to defend that by saying that we are against this project? It is nonsense to defend such a system.
Hon. Members who attack this scheme do so for various reasons. Some hon. Members from Kent say that the scheme will be disastrous for employment and would have a severe effect on the economy of west Kent. The hon. Member for Thanet, North (Mr. Gale) graphically outlined what he saw as the economic disasters that would result from this project. He will not like me saying this, but he made one of the finest arguments for socialism in west Kent that I have ever heard. [AN HON. MEMBER: "East Kent."]

Mr. Stuart Holland: East or west——

Mr. Snape: East or west, socialism is best, as my hon. Friend the Member for Vauxhall (Mr. Holland) reminds me.
The hon. Member for Thanet, North made a plea for Government intervention in that part of the world. He spoke about the differences between the French approach to these matters and his own Government's approach and made a plea for infrastructure expenditure. I do not know how his speech affected his right hon. Friend the Minister, who has just escaped from the Treasury, but it certainly warmed my heart. It has taken seven years for economic reality to dawn on the hon. Member for Thanet, North. It may have been delayed, but it is none the less welcome. The Opposition have called for Government intervention of that sort for a long time, but, regrettably, the Secretary of State for Transport has resolutely opposed it for seven years. I hope that even the right hon. Gentleman's Treasury-hardened heart will melt in the face of this plea from his own hon. Friend, even if nothing that l say convinces him.
My hon. Friend the Member for Warley, East and my hon. Friend the Member for Stretford (Mr. Lloyd) and a number of hon. Members talked about the benefits that would accrue to the south of England as a result of this scheme. Geographically, it is impossible to put a channel tunnel anywhere else. That disposes of that argument straight away. The group that now calls itself Eurotunnel supplied me with a preliminary list of United Kingdom suppliers of materials and services for the construction and operation of the project. No doubt the same list has been supplied to other hon. Members. In the east and west midlands there are no fewer than 117 companies on that list, and one of them is based in the constituency of my hon. Friend the Member for Warley, East.

Mr. Faulds: rose——

Mr. Snape: I share with my hon. Friend the Member for Warley, East a constituency boundary and one of the subsidiary companies is in my constituency. I respect the view of my hon. Friend, but if that company approaches me I will do my best to make sure that it stays or. the list of suppliers.

Mr. Faulds: I am moderately aware after 20 years of what industrial activity goes on, or, more to the pont, used to go on, in my constituency before the advent of these dreadful days of Tory government. I do not share my hon. Friend's apparent gullibility about all the promotional bumf that is put out by these self-concerned and self-interested companies.

Mr. Snape: I concede straight away that my hon. Friend has been here a lot longer than I have. [Interruption.] I cannot say that about him because he has a constituency next door to mine. My hon. Friend thinks that I am being gullible in accepting this preliminary list of United Kingdom suppliers, but he must surely concede that not many of the suppliers for this sort of construction work, if it gets the go-ahead, are based in the south of England. Only a few of them are based there.

Mr. Faulds: Will my hon. Friend give way?

Mr. Snape: No, I shall not give way again to my hon. Friend. He has not had a bad innings, especially since, as he said, he was unavoidably detained elsewhere for most of the debate.
The fact is that most of the suppliers—

Mr. Faulds: Will my hon. Friend give way?

Mr. Snape: No.
The fact is that 90 per cent. of the suppliers are not based in the south of England. Opposition Members in particular ought to be more conscious of that fact.

Mr. Aitken: I am anxious that the hon. Gentleman should not be taken for a ride by the propaganda. He keeps calling these firms "suppliers." All hon. Members hope that British firms will turn into suppliers for this project, if it takes place, but the fact is that no one is a supplier until the tender has gone out to European competition, in which case the list of so-called suppliers may, alas, be a good deal thinner.

Mr. Snape: I am glad that the hon. Gentleman has mentioned that point. Had it been up to the Labour party, there would have been no doubt about who would get these contracts, because we should not have been daft enough to go into the Common Market on the terms that the Conservative Government — the one that the present Conservative Government never talk about these days—went into it. The fact that we are members of the EEC means that we are bound by EEC rules.
Having looked at the list of names that are part of the consortium which forms Eurotunnel, I should have thought that a substantial number of the contracts could be built in-house. Many of the names on the preliminary suppliers list are subsidiaries of companies that form part of the Eurotunnel consortium. Therefore, do not blame me for the rules of the Common Market. I never wanted this country to join it in the first place. If we are stuck with that organisation, as we seem to be, contingencies are built into the project which ensure that the bulk of the work goes to United Kingdom companies, most of which, I repeat, are not based in the south of England.
As for the other aspect of the scheme——

Mr. Faulds: Will my hon. Friend give way?

Mr. Snape: No, I do not intend to give way to my hon. Friend.
As for the railways side of the argument, the hon. Member for Ashford rightly said that many right hon. and hon. Members on both sides of the House frequently receive letters from organisations and from their constituents demanding, in my view rightly, that more use should be made of our under-utilised railways system.
British Rail says that, under this project, 20 through freight trains will be running each day in each direction through the tunnel. I should have thought that those who are concerned, if only for environmental reasons, with halting the seemingly never-ending onrush of heavy goods vehicles would be prepared to concede that 20 freight trains each way per day is better, environmentally, than the present position. However, all hon. Members know — at least, we ought to, because we debate these matters often enough — that at the moment there is nowhere near the kind of capacity in British Rail's freight wagon fleet to provide 20 freight trains a day. Therefore it follows that there must be a substantial wagon building project in the United Kingdom to cater for the additional freight.
I hope that it will not be suggested by the hon. Member for Thanet, South (Mr. Aitken) or by any other hon. Member that those freight vehicles are to be imported from abroad. I hope that the latest cuts so blithely entered into

by the present Government concerning British Rail's freight and passenger carrying manufacturing capacity will not prevent British business and British workers from making railway wagons and locomotives for shuttle train use by both British Rail and the Eurotunnel consortium. We are not talking about an insignificant project. British Rail has said that it plans to spend £400 million on rail facilities necessary for the services. I remind my hon. Friend the Member for Warley, East that up the road from both our constituencies Metro Cammell is rather anxious to get its teeth into this sort of business.

Mr. Faulds: I have at last prevailed upon my hon. Friend to give way; I was getting exhausted with waiting. [HON. MEMBERS: "Get on with it then."] I will, but in my own good time.
My hon. Friend made the point that there would be sudden bursts of activity throughout the country caused by the construction of the tunnel. Would it not be better if those bursts of activity in a number of constituencies were to do with the re-creation of the infrastructure of Britain rather than this unnecessary project of tunnelling under the Channel? If these bursts of activity are going to be caused by sensational exercises like this, is my hon. Friend arguing that under this Government and perhaps under the next one — our own — we should have a series of Channel tunnels to create these bursts of activity?

Mr. Snape: I knew that it was a mistake to give way twice to my hon. Friend. I am delighted to try to answer him, although obviously I will not convince him, because he is unconvinceable on this project.
Neither I nor my hon. Friend has any control over the capital that is to be invested in the Eurotunnel scheme. It is not state capital. The straight objection to the 1975 Labour Government scheme was that capital thus employed would be better employed in infrastructure projects — although why on earth we do not regard modernising the railway system as an infrastructure project, I do not know—than in the Channel tunnel and associated works. That argument will not wash on this occasion because it is private money and we have no control over the direction of that private capital. If the money is not spent on this project, it will not be spent on those infrastructure projects that both my hon. Friend and I would like to see carried out in the United Kingdom. For those reasons, we believe that, of the three schemes, the Government have opted for the right one.
We shall in the passage of the Bill be seeking reassurance on other matters, particularly on the question of customs procedures and the understandable view held by hon. Members on both sides of the House that there should be equity in these procedures. However, all these matters can be debated and, one hopes, settled in the passage of the legislation.
I remain as convinced now as I was in 1975. I do not wholeheartedly embrace the slogan that if it is good enough for the railways it is good enough for Britain, but at long last we are doing something about the infrastructure of the railways. It is long overdue. Governments of both parties have been talking about it long enough. At least, under this project, there is some hope that at last something will be done.

Mr. Robert Adley: I am grateful for the opportunity to intervene briefly. The debate that took place


between the hon. Member for West Bromwich, East (Mr. Snape) and his hon. Friend the Member for Warley, East (Mr. Faulds) illustrated, I think, that the hon. Member for West Bromwich, East was right and my hon. Friend the Member for Thanet, South (Mr. Aitken) was wrong when my hon. Friend claimed that there was a growing band of opponents to the Bill. The fact is that the Labour party this time has been much more reasonable in its approach to the Bill, and the debate has shown those of us who have been here for a long time that we might as well have had the vote first and the debate afterwards, if anyone seriously thought that anyone would change their views.
As my hon. Friend the Member for Ashford (Mr. Speed) said, it really has been rather depressing to hear the whingeing, dismal Jimmies who can see nothing but problems, damage and chaos arising from the proposal. To give one example, although I do not want to dwell on his speech, my hon. Friend the Member for Thanet, South suggested that if the Channel tunnel was built transcontinental ships would dock at continental ports in order to gain access to the British market via the Channel tunnel. If we put that argument on its head, he would say that transatlantic ships would soon be docking again in huge numbers at Liverpool to gain access to European markets via the Channel tunnel. Most of us settle our views first and make our arguments to fit them.
If there is one thing that is not true—my hon. Friend the Member for Ashford mentioned this—it surely is that the Government are trying indecently to rush this through. The project has been under discussion in and out of the House for well over 100 years. Among the things that I have discovered in research in slightly unusual places is that the borings for the Channel tunnel in the last century led to the discovery of coal below the chalk of east Kent. Who knows what might be discovered underneath the middle of the Channel when we get that far, as I am sure we shall.
I support the principle of the Bill and I support very much the Government's decision to build a rail tunnel. It will do the least damage to the environment. The railway aspects of the tunnel give far and away the best prospects for the regions. I beg hon. Members from the midlands and the north to consider carefully what the Bill, with its rail input, could do for their regions.
I want to ask the Minister about one point that I raised with the Secretary of State when I intervened in his speech. Will the Government please give serious consideration to making the maximum use of the investment by both the private and the public sectors in our railway system? I shall give only one example, the Tonbridge-Redhill-Reading route. I think that the hon. Member for Vauxhall (Mr. Holland) would agree that we should be able to find ways of giving London a wide berth in order to maximise the opportunities for the regions.
I have now extracted from British Rail the expenditure that would be involved. The Tonbridge-Redhill electrification would cost £12·5 million, which is presently not included in the proposals. The Redhill-Reading electrification, which would include electrification provision for gaps and reinforcement where already provided, would cost £20·5 million extra. The main bottleneck on that line, caused by the need to reverse at Redhill, could be eliminated by the construction of a fly-over at a cost of £5 million. British Rail, in not wanting to do this, is unlikely to have underestimated for me the cost of this work.
In the second Beeching report the line to which I have referred was retained—that is why it still exists—clearly and specifically for the possible future construction of a Channel tunnel. I shall not weary the House by quoting from the report. However, I urge my hon. Friend the Minister to study the map included in that report, dated February 1965 on the development of the major railway trunk routes. At the moment we have the unhappy situation of the Government, due to the restraints that they are putting on British Rail, actually out-Beeching Beeching because they are not encouraging investment in the railway infrastructure for that vital part of the railway system.
I agree with my hon. Friend the Member for Ashford that we have been talking about this project for long enough. It is a great and exciting project. I look forward with enthusiasm to voting for the Bill.

Mr. Jim Lester: I am delighted to have the opportunity to contribute briefly to this part of the debate. We need to return to first principles. Future employment prospects depend entirely on the development of the internal market within the Common Market, of which we have been a member since 1972. The hon. Member for Warley, East (Mr. Faulds) talked about infrastructure. 'We need a European infrastructure if we want to develop the Common Market into the largest market in the world.
To talk about internal infrastructure without having a vision of the way the Common Market is developing and the important part that the tunnel will play in an efficient transport system means that we are living in the period before 1972.
The employment prospects for this country are vital. The hon. Member for West Bromwich, East (Mr. Snape) and I went down the original tunnel workings. I remember the profound sense of disappointment when that project was cancelled. It set back for 10 years the development of an efficient transportation system, open 24 hours a day despite the weather, to take increased freight into that greatest market in the world—11 other countries.
Hon. Members have spoken of what the French will gain from the market. We are all in the market—we are working for it and to develop it, and the Channel tunnel is an important part of it. Unless we have that clear in our minds, all the moaning Minnies and dismal Johnnies will never see employment in this country that will really take us forward.
In no way do I criticise the present systems. We will have a choice between ferries and business efficiency, with rail and other contacts through the tunnel, which will be a great advantage. It will set the different pattern of trade that we all want. My hon. Friend the Member for Ashford (Mr. Speed) mentioned figures that gave some idea of the impact that the project might have. When the M1 was built, did anyone suggest that even the most advantageous figures from the Department of Transport would be wrong by factors of 12 for freight traffic and four for overall traffic? When Hitler built the autobahns in Germany, with great effect for regional development, did anyone suggest that he was talking about need? When Mussolini built the autostradas in Italy in the 1930s, which had a profound effect on development in that country, did anyone suggest that he was talking about need?
When the Abercrombie committee considered transportation around London in the 1930s, we rejected its


recommendations as we rejected so many recommendations, and only now have we built the M25 and carried out its recommendations of all those years ago.
I understand the concern of colleagues in Kent and accept that they must put forward environmental considerations in the interests of their constituents. However, I am a Nottingham Member and I know about the impact of mining, opencast mining and power stations, all of which have caused severe environmental difficulties. Yet we accepted that they should be developed as a natural consequence of our geographical position and the fact that we are part of the national scene and they are national resources. It is now the turn of east Kent to fulfil that function within the development of the Common Market.
Although we all want proper consideration to be given to legitimate fears, in a wholly different legal position from that which we faced in the early part of the century, we would look badly upon unfair and unacceptable practices that would delay the project from 1993.
Important industrial decisions will be made as soon as the Bill is clearly under way. There are companies in this country that want to expand. Inward Investment wants to develop and double the size of its factories because it recognises that access from existing factories will be so much better. We need to give a clear signal that we support the Bill and the tunnel. We need the concrete and constructive impact that it will have on the investment decisions of our industrial base, because that is the only way that we will get through in the future.

The Minister of State, Department of Transport (Mr. David Mitchell): The House has had a full and thoughtful debate, not for the first time, on whether to build a Channel tunnel. Indeed, this is the fifth time that I have had the privilege of replying to a debate on various aspects of it. But tonight is different, for tonight the House is to take in a historic decision, by its vote, on the principle of whether the Channel tunnel is to go ahead. I am sure that every hon. Member will wish to participate in that decision, which involves the biggest civil engineering project every undertaken in this country through the centuries.
Naturally there is concern in Kent, especially in the parts most affected. I accept that in a major national project of this nature there is bound to be local environmental disadvantage, but in Kent there will also be opportunities for new developments and new businesses, and the prospects are good for them — indeed, rather better than for English football.
In an attempt to provide help in Kent by identifying the problems and finding solutions, we have brought together in a consultative committee elected representatives of the Kent county council, the district councils that will be affected, British Rail, the Department of the Environment, the promoters and the Department of Transport.
I am chairman of the committee, it meets approximately monthly and it is already hard at work trying to minimise the disadvantages and maximise the potential advantages of the tunnel. [Interruption.]

Mr. Speaker: Order.

Mr. Mark Wolfson: Will my hon. Friend reconsider the position that he has taken in the committee, which means that the public are not allowed in to listen to its deliberations?

Mr. Mitchell: My hon. Friend will know that the chairman does not decide the procedure in this kind of committee. However, we have ensured that the minutes of the meetings are made available to all local authorities, and at the next meeting we will consider making the minutes available to the press. That should meet my hon. Friend's request. We do not intend that there should be any secrecy about what is happening, but we like to discuss our problems objectively without having to think all the time that every word must be weighed for how it will be interpreted or misinterpreted.
The Kent joint consultative committee is breaking new ground in many respects by bringing representatives of all those who are affected together in a working committee. My hon. Friend the Member for Ashford (Mr. Speed) asked whether it would be possible for the Kent association of parish councils to be represented on the committee. I was originally informed that that association did not represent all the parishes in Kent, but representatives of that association have been to see me recently, and as a result of the convincing case that was put for representation I shall propose at the next committee meeting that an invitation be extended to the association to be represented. I hope that that will meet the point raised by my hon. Friend.
The hon. Member for Aberdeen, North (Mr. Hughes) — if I may have his attention—addressed the House with his usual courtesy and level tones. However, he left me with the impression that he wants to see the tunnel go ahead, but is uncertain whether he can lead his supporters into the Lobby. On such a major national issue, the Labour party surely cannot funk the decision and abstain.
The hon. Gentleman made a number of important points and asked several shrewd questions which deserve an answer, and I am pleased to help the hon. Gentleman by providing them. He wants to know who will get the contracts. He wants to know whether United Kingdom firms will secure the bulk of the work and create jobs here. I can tell the hon. Gentleman that the whole project is a joint venture by two consortia. I assure the hon. Gentleman that the members of the consortia can award themselves contracts.

Mr. Speed: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. This is a most important reply, which some of us would like to hear. It is difficult to hear it because of the hubub from other hon. Members.

Mr. Speaker: I had already called for order. Will the hon. Members who are beyond the Bar of the House kindly refrain from talking.

Mr. Mitchell: The position on the contracts is that the consortia can award consortia members contracts without risk of challenge in the European Court of Justice. In the case of third party contracts, 30 per cent. must go to competitive tender. However, I am confident that British industry can compete successfully. We are increasingly competing successfully in international markets and our ability to do so on our own doorstep is considerable.
I was asked about the failure to develop plans for fully equipping British Rail. I do not understand what the hon.


Member for Aberdeen, North means. I have already given approval, in principle, to all the investment requested by British Rail in connection with the Channel tunnel. There will be a full commercial return, and therefore there is no question of Government subsidy.
The hon. Member for Aberdeen, North also talked about the focal points in the British Rail network. I agree with him. At present there are six main inland clearance depots, at London, Birmingham, Glasgow, Manchester, Liverpool and Leeds. It is fair to say that these provide the opportunity for the assembly of a large amount of cargo which can go right through the tunnel for distribution on the continent. A lot of traffic will be taken off the roads. My hon. Friends from Kent are worried about the impact of the tunnel on the roads in Kent. British Rail calculates that——

It being Ten o'clock, the debate stood adjourned.

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE

Ordered,
That, at this day's sitting, the Channel Tunnel Bill, the Motion in the name of Mr. Secretary Moore relating to the committal of the Channel Tunnel Bill to a Select Committee and any Motion for an Instruction relating to the Channel Tunnel Bill may be proceeded with, though opposed, until any hour.—[Mr. Peter Lloyd.]

Orders of the Day — Channel Tunnel Bill

Question again proposed, That the Bill be now read a Second time.

Mr. Speaker: Before the Minister rises again, I call for quietness, so that he may be heard.

Mr. Mitchell: British Rail tells me that its planned 20 freight trains a day in each direction equate to 1,000 38-tonne lorries a day off our roads. As one who cares deeply about the environment and our countryside, I think that that is something we can all look forward to with considerable satisfaction. I join my hon. Friend the Member for Ashford in appealing to people to stop knocking British Rail. It is certainly putting its back into trying to achieve success here.
The Kent association of exporters says——

Mr. Robert Hughes: Before the Minister leaves the questions that I put to him, will he reply to the point about the golden share?

Mr. Mitchell: I intend to reply to a number of other points that the hon. Gentleman made.
The Kent association of exporters, representing over 80 companies engaged in manufacture and goods handling, has welcomed the Channel tunnel as a major way of stimulating Britain's export potential, and it expects a major increase in exports from Kent.
The hon. Member for Aberdeen, North asked about the golden share. This is a complex issue of company law. No decision has been taken yet, and we are examining the possibilities with Eurotunnel. When a decision is taken, I shall bring it to the House.
The hon. Member for Isle of Wight (Mr. Ross) made a robust and honest speech as the official spokesman on transport for the Liberal party. He gave his unrepentant support for the Channel tunnel. I note that he laid it baldly on the line that he would take the same view as the Government if he were in government. [Interruption.] I hope that he will convey that view to the Liberal

spokesman in the constituency of my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Folkestone and Hythe (Mr. Howard), who, as always, is in his place.
My hon. Friend the Member for Harwich (Sir J. Ridsdale) made some technical points, about which I shall write to him.
My hon. Friend the Member for Bexhill and Battle (Mr. Wardle) made a series of local points affecting Folkestone. [Interruption.] I shall write to him and to my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Folkestone and Hythe. I recognise that this is another example of my hon. and learned Friend's ingenuity in raising points in the House on behalf of his constituents. [Interruption.]
My right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Dover (Mr. Rees) made, as always, a valuable contribution to our debates and stressed the need for clear competition. He assured the House that the ferry operators can hold their own. [Interruption.]

Mr. Speaker: Order. These are very important matters.

Mr. Mitchell: My right hon. and learned Friend assured the House that the ferry operators can hold their own, but only if competition is fair, and I agree with him. I think that he will be interested in the speech of the right hon. Member for Lewisham, Deptford (Mr. Silkin), who dwelt on the attraction of hovercrafts and ferries and drew attention to the advantages that the ferries will have because of the long rest periods required for long distance lorry drivers, which make the ferries particularly attractive. There will be ferry work in the future as well as the tunnel work.

Mr. Silkin: I know that this is difficult for the hon. Gentleman to grasp, but I was saying that the advantage of the ferries would disappear if they were wiped out by the competition of the tunnel, which is what I imagine will happen.

Mr. Mitchell: It is interesting to note how both sides in this competitive endeavour are frightened of the competition. Both sides see the other as having an advantage. That leaves me with the suspicion that there will be a fair balance of competition between them.
My right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Dover, asked me some specific questions. He asked whether the money resolution would give covert financial aid to the Channel tunnel operators. I can give him an absolute assurance that it does not do so. He asked for an assurance on their being no faltering in the intention to complete the A20 extension into Dover. I can give him that assurance. The only reason why that is not included in the Bill is the uncertainty of the route between the GEC factory and the old battlements at the entrance to Dover, and some other local controversies. My right hon. and learned Friend asked for a timetable for improvements to the M2/A2. We expect these to be completed by 1991. My hon. Friend the Member for Faversham (Mr. Moate) asked for an assurance that there would be no question of spoil being moved by road. We had 65 options as to where spoil could go. We have whittled that down to 10, and in doing so we have taken out every one of the proposals that involved moving spoil by road. I hope that my hon. Friend will feel encouraged by that.
I was asked about the Tourism Act being administered sympathetically in the Dover area. I am meeting Mr.


Duncan Bluck, the chairman of the English Tourist Board next Tuesday, and I shall have in mind the points that have been raised.

Mr. Peter Rees: I am grateful for the comments in my speech that my hon. Friend has taken up. However, I asked about the movement of shale from Kent.

Mr. Mitchell: My right hon. and learned Friend is right. He asked a number of other questions, but the hour is late and some hon. Members are getting restless. No conclusions have yet been reached about shale. We are discussing with the promoters the way in which shale should be moved.
The House was greatly interested in the speech of my hon. Friend the Member for Thanet, South (Mr. Aitken). He referred to many misconceptions, which were illustrated in his article in The Times headed:
How the Chunnel will hit our pockets.
My hon. Friend quoted with reproval a recent pamphlet alleging the cost to the public purse, which said:
To take only one small example, the Department of Transport is to acquire compulsorily land for the 14-mile stretch of the M20 between Maidstone and Ashford not yet built. This it is thought, will cost £60 million.
My hon. Friend is under a misapprehension in thinking that £60 million will be spent because of the Channel tunnel. It would have been spent anyway, because by the end of the century double the present number of people will be going through the ports of Kent, and extra roads would have been required anyway. Therefore, my hon. Friend is under a misconception.
My hon. Friend also talked about British Rail's expenditure of £400 million, which he says will come from the Exchequer. It will not. It is all fully commercial, and it is because of that, and because it will make a profit, that British Rail is being given the go ahead.

Mr. Stuart Holland: Is the expenditure of £60 million on Waterloo station to be private or public money?

Mr. Mitchell: I was about to deal with the speech of the hon. Member for Vauxhall (Mr. Holland), if I can make myself heard above the comments of his hon. Friends sitting around him.
My hon. Friend the Member for Thanet, North (Mr. Gale) mystifies me. I listened to his speech with considerable interest. He praises the French for spending money on infrastructure in north-east France, and regards that as right, but he attacks the British Government for proposing to do something similar in Kent. The hour is late, so on the question of safety I shall say only that my hon. Friend need have no concern.
I understand the concerns of the hon. Member for Vauxhall. If he wishes to invite me to come and see the problem on the spot, I shall be happy to accept the invitation.
The hon. Member for Warley, West (Mr. Faulds) put on his great act. He attacked the Government for the lack of jobs, and then proceeded to oppose an infrastructure project that will create jobs.
My hon. Friend the Member for Christchurch (Mr. Adley) called for wider use of British Rail routes round London, and I take on board the points that he raised.
I return to the rhetorical question raised by the right hon. Member for Lewisham, Deptford: is there any need

for this project? There is a need, not just for the jobs that will be created now, but because of the much better position in which it will put British exporters in the future. Not only will our business community and travellers be able to move more safely, but our goods will be able to get into the export markets of Europe more cheaply, more competitively and more quickly than they have been able to do so far.
Future generations will not only look back on tonight as a historic occasion, but will ask themselves why the hell we did not do it before.

Question put, That the amendment be made:—

The House divided: Ayes 146, Noes 317.

Division No. 206]
[10.14 pm


AYES


Adams, Allen (Paisley N)
George, Bruce


Archer, Rt Hon Peter
Gilbert, Rt Hon Dr John


Ashley, Rt Hon Jack
Godman, Dr Norman


Ashton, Joe
Gould, Bryan


Atkinson, N. (Tottenham)
Hamilton, James (M'well N)


Banks, Tony (Newham NW)
Hamilton, W. W. (Fife Central)


Barnett, Guy
Hancock, Michael


Barron, Kevin
Harman, Ms Harriet


Beckett, Mrs Margaret
Harrison, Rt Hon Walter


Bell, Stuart
Hattersley, Rt Hon Roy


Benn, Rt Hon Tony
Healey, Rt Hon Denis


Bennett, A. (Dent'n &amp; Red'sh)
Heffer, Eric S.


Bermingham, Gerald
Hogg, N. (C'nauld &amp; Kilsyth)


Bidwell, Sydney
Holland, Stuart (Vauxhall)


Blair, Anthony
Hughes, Dr Mark (Durham)


Boyes, Roland
Hughes, Robert (Aberdeen N)


Brown, Ron (E'burgh, Leith)
Hughes, Roy (Newport East)


Buchan, Norman
Jones, Barry (Alyn &amp; Deeside)


Caborn, Richard
Kaufman, Rt Hon Gerald


Callaghan, Jim (Heyw'd &amp; M)
Kilroy-Silk, Robert


Campbell-Savours, Dale
Leadbitter, Ted


Canavan, Dennis
Lewis, Terence (Worsley)


Clarke, Thomas
Litherland, Robert


Clay, Robert
Lloyd, Tony (Stretford)


Clelland, David Gordon
Lofthouse, Geoffrey


Clwyd, Mrs Ann
McDonald, Dr Oonagh


Cohen, Harry
McKelvey, William


Conlan, Bernard
MacKenzie, Rt Hon Gregor


Cook, Frank (Stockton North)
McNamara, Kevin


Cook, Robin F. (Livingston)
McTaggart, Robert


Corbett, Robin
McWilliam, John


Corbyn, Jeremy
Madden, Max


Cox, Thomas (Tooting)
Marek, Dr John


Craigen, J. M.
Martin, Michael


Crowther, Stan
Maxton, John


Cunningham, Dr John
Maynard, Miss Joan


Dalyell, Tam
Meacher, Michael


Davies, Rt Hon Denzil (L'lli)
Michie, William


Davies, Ronald (Caerphilly)
Mikardo, Ian


Davis, Terry (B'ham, H'ge H'l)
Millan, Rt Hon Bruce


Deakins, Eric
Mitchell, Austin (G't Grimsby)


Dewar, Donald
Morris, Rt Hon A. (W'shawe)


Dixon, Donald
Morris, Rt Hon J. (Aberavon)


Dobson, Frank
Nellist, David


Dormand, Jack
Oakes, Rt Hon Gordon


Douglas, Dick
O'Brien, William


Dubs, Alfred
Orme, Rt Hon Stanley


Dunwoody, Hon Mrs G.
Park, George


Eastham, Ken
Patchett, Terry


Evans, John (St. Helens N)
Pendry, Tom


Fatchett, Derek
Pike, Peter


Faulds, Andrew
Randall, Stuart


Field, Frank (Birkenhead)
Raynsford, Nick


Fields, T. (L'pool Broad Gn)
Redmond, Martin


Fisher, Mark
Richardson, Ms Jo


Flannery, Martin
Roberts, Allan (Bootle)


Foot, Rt Hon Michael
Roberts, Ernest (Hackney N)


Forrester, John
Robinson, G. (Coventry NW)


Foster, Derek
Rogers, Allan


Foulkes, George
Rooker, J. W.


Fraser, J. (Norwood)
Ross, Ernest (Dundee W)






Rowlands, Ted
Thomas, Dr R. (Carmarthen)


Ryman, John
Thompson, J. (Wansbeck)


Sedgemore, Brian
Tinn, James


Shore, Rt Hon Peter
Torney, Tom


Short, Ms Clare (Ladywood)
Warden, Gareth (Gower)


Silkin, Rt Hon J.
Weetch, Ken


Skinner, Dennis
Welsh, Michael


Smith, C.(Isl'ton S &amp; F'bury)
Williams, Rt Hon A.


Snape, Peter
Winnick, David


Soley, Clive
Young, David (Bolton SE)


Spearing, Nigel



Stott, Roger
Tellers for the Ayes:


Strang, Gavin
Mr. Frank Haynes and 


Straw, Jack
Mr. Allen McKay.




NOES


Adley, Robert
Coombs, Simon


Alexander, Richard
Cope, John


Alison, Rt Hon Michael
Cranborne, Viscount


Alton, David
Critchley, Julian


Amery, Rt Hon Julian
Crouch, David


Amess, David
Currie, Mrs Edwina


Ancram, Michael
Dickens, Geoffrey


Arnold, Tom
Dorrell, Stephen


Ashby, David
Douglas-Hamilton, Lord J.


Ashdown, Paddy
du Cann, Rt Hon Sir Edward


Aspinwall, Jack
Dunn, Robert


Atkins, Rt Hon Sir H.
Durant, Tony


Atkins, Robert (South Ribble)
Edwards, Rt Hon N. (P'broke)


Atkinson, David (B'm'th E)
Eggar, Tim


Baker, Rt Hon K. (Mole Vall'y)
Evennett, David


Baker, Nicholas (Dorset N)
Eyre, Sir Reginald


Banks, Robert (Harrogate)
Fallon, Michael


Batiste, Spencer
Favell, Anthony


Bellingham, Henry
Fenner, Mrs Peggy


Bendall, Vivian
Fletcher, Alexander


Benyon, William
Fookes, Miss Janet


Best, Keith
Forman, Nigel


Biffen, Rt Hon John
Forsyth, Michael (Stirling)


Biggs-Davison, Sir John
Forth, Eric


Blackburn, John
Fowler, Rt Hon Norman


Blaker, Rt Hon Sir Peter
Fox, Marcus


Bonsor, Sir Nicholas
Franks, Cecil


Bottomley, Peter
Fraser, Peter (Angus East)


Bottomley, Mrs Virginia
Freeman, Roger


Bowden, A. (Brighton K'to'n)
Freud, Clement


Bowden, Gerald (Dulwich)
Galley, Roy


Boyson, Dr Rhodes
Gardner, Sir Edward (Fylde)


Brandon-Bravo, Martin
Garel-Jones, Tristan


Bright, Graham
Gilmour, Rt Hon Sir Ian


Brinton, Tim
Glyn, Dr Alan


Brittan, Rt Hon Leon
Goodhart, Sir Philip


Brooke, Hon Peter
Gow, Ian


Brown, M. (Brigg &amp; Cl'thpes)
Grant, Sir Anthony


Browne, John
Greenway, Harry


Bruinvels, Peter
Gregory, Conal


Bryan, Sir Paul
Griffiths, Peter (Portsm'th N)


Buchanan-Smith, Rt Hon A.
Grist, Ian


Budgen, Nick
Ground, Patrick


Bulmer, Esmond
Grylls, Michael


Burt, Alistair
Gummer, Rt Hon John S


Butcher, John
Hamilton, Hon A. (Epsom)


Butler, Rt Hon Sir Adam
Hamilton, Neil (Tatton)


Butterfill, John
Hanley, Jeremy


Carlisle, John (Luton N)
Hannam, John


Carlisle, Kenneth (Lincoln)
Hargreaves, Kenneth


Carlisle, Rt Hon M. (W'ton S)
Harris, David


Cartwright, John
Haselhurst Alan


Cash, William
Hawkins, C. (High Peak)


Channon, Rt Hon Paul
Hawksley, Warren


Chapman, Sydney
Hayes, J.


Chope, Christopher
Hayhoe, Rt Hon Barney


Churchill, W. S.
Hayward, Robert


Clark, Hon A. (Plym'th S'n)
Heath, Rt Hon Edward


Clark, Dr Michael (Rochford)
Heathcoat-Amory, David


Clark, Sir W. (Croydon S)
Henderson, Barry


Clegg, Sir Walter
Heseltine, Rt Hon Michael


Cockeram, Eric
Hickmet, Richard


Colvin, Michael
Higgins, Rt Hon Terence L.


Conway, Derek
Hind, Kenneth





Hogg, Hon Douglas (Gr'th'm)
Nelson, Anthony


Holt, Richard
Newton, Tony


Hordern, Sir Peter
Nicholls, Patrick


Howard, Michael
Norris, Steven


Howarth, Gerald (Cannock)
Onslow, Cranley


Howe, Rt Hon Sir Geoffrey
Oppenheim, Rt Hon Mrs S.


Howell, Ralph (Norfolk, N)
Osborn, Sir John


Hubbard-Miles, Peter
Page, Richard (Herts SW)


Hughes, Simon (Southwark)
Patten, Christopher (Bath)


Hunt, David (Wirral W)
Patten, J. (Oxf W &amp; Abgdn)


Hunt, John (Ravensbourne)
Pattie, Geoffrey


Hunter, Andrew
Pawsey, James


Hurd, Rt Hon Douglas
Percival, Rt Hon Sir Ian


Irving, Charles
Pollock, Alexander


Jackson, Robert
Portillo, Michael


Jenkin, Rt Hon Patrick
Powell, William (Corby)


Johnson Smith, Sir Geoffrey
Powley, John


Jones, Gwilym (Cardiff N)
Prentice, Rt Hon Reg


Jones, Robert (Herts W)
Price, Sir David


Jopling, Rt Hon Michael
Prior, Rt Hon James


Joseph, Rt Hon Sir Keith
Proctor, K. Harvey


Kellett-Bowman, Mrs Elaine
Pym, Rt Hon Francis


Kennedy, Charles
Raison, Rt Hon Timothy


Kershaw, Sir Anthony
Rathbone, Tim


Key, Robert
Renton, Tim


King, Roger (B'ham N'field)
Rhodes James, Robert


King, Rt Hon Tom
Rhys Williams, Sir Brandon


Knight, Greg (Derby N)
Ridley, Rt Hon Nicholas


Knowles, Michael
Ridsdale, Sir Julian


Knox, David
Rifkind, Rt Hon Malcolm


Lamont, Norman
Roberts, Wyn (Conwy)


Lang, Ian
Robinson, Mark (N'port W)


Latham, Michael
Roe, Mrs Marion


Lawler, Geoffrey
Ross, Stephen (Isle of Wight)


Lawrence, Ivan
Rossi, Sir Hugh


Lawson, Rt Hon Nigel
Rowe, Andrew


Lee, John (Pendle)
Rumbold, Mrs Angela


Leigh, Edward (Gainsbor'gh)
Ryder, Richard


Lennox-Boyd, Hon Mark
Sackville, Hon Thomas


Lester, Jim
Sainsbury, Hon Timothy


Lewis, Sir Kenneth (Stamf'd)
St. John-Stevas, Rt Hon N.


Lilley, Peter
Sayeed, Jonathan


Lloyd, Ian (Havant)
Scott, Nicholas


Lloyd, Peter (Fareham)
Shaw, Giles (Pudsey)


Lord, Michael
Shaw, Sir Michael (Scarb')


Luce, Rt Hon Richard
Shelton, William (Streatharn)


Lyell, Nicholas
Shepherd, Colin (Hereford)


McCrindle, Robert
Shepherd, Richard (Aldridge)


McCurley, Mrs Anna
Shersby, Michael


Macfarlane, Neil
Sims, Roger


MacGregor, Rt Hon John
Skeet, Sir Trevor


MacKay, Andrew (Berkshire)
Smith, Tim (Beaconsfield)


McLoughlin, Patrick
Soames, Hon Nicholas


McNair-Wilson, M. (N'bury)
Speed, Keith


McNair-Wilson, P. (New F'st)
Speller, Tony


McQuarrie, Albert
Spencer, Derek


Madel, David
Spicer, Jim (Dorset W)


Major, John
Spicer, Michael (S Worcs)


Malins, Humfrey
Squire, Robin


Malone, Gerald
Stanbrook, Ivor


Maples, John
Stanley, Rt Hon John


Marlow, Antony
Steel, Rt Hon David


Marshall, Michael (Arundel)
Steen, Anthony


Mates, Michael
Stern, Michael


Maude, Hon Francis
Stevens, Lewis (Nuneaton)


Maxwell-Hyslop, Robin
Stewart, Andrew (Sherwood)


Mayhew, Sir Patrick
Stewart, Ian (Hertf'dshire N)


Mellor, David
Sumberg, David


Merchant, Piers
Taylor, John (Solihull)


Meyer, Sir Anthony
Tebbit, Rt Hon Norman


Miller, Hal (B'grove)
Temple-Morris, Peter


Mills, lain (Meriden)
Thatcher, Rt Hon Mrs M.


Miscampbell, Norman
Thomas, Rt Hon Peter


Mitchell, David (Hants NW)
Thompson, Donald (Calder V)


Montgomery, Sir Fergus
Thompson, Patrick (N'ich N)


Moore, Rt Hon John
Thornton, Malcolm


Morrison, Hon C. (Devizes)
Thurnham, Peter


Moynihan, Hon C.
Townend, John (Bridlington)


Neale, Gerrard
Townsend, Cyril D. (B'heath)


Needham, Richard
Tracey, Richard






Twinn, Dr Ian
Wheeler, John


Vaughan, Sir Gerard
Whitfield, John


Viggers, Peter
Whitney, Raymond


Waddington, David
Winterton, Mrs Ann


Wakeham, Rt Hon John
Winterton, Nicholas


Walden, George
Wolfson, Mark


Walker, Bill (T'side N)
Wood, Timothy


Walker, Rt Hon P. (W'cester)
Woodcock, Michael


Wall, Sir Patrick
Wrigglesworth, Ian


Wallace, James
Yeo, Tim


Waller, Gary
Young, Sir George (Acton)


Walters, Dennis
Younger, Rt Hon George


Wardle, C. (Bexhill)



Warren, Kenneth
Tellers for the Noes:


Watson, John
Mr. Carol Mather and


Watts, John
Mr. Robert Boscawen.


Wells, Bowen (Hertford)

Question accordingly negatived.

Main Question put forthwith, pursuant to Standing Order No. 41 (Amendment on Second or Third Reading.)

The House divided:— Ayes 309, Noes 44.

Division No. 207]
[10.25 pm


AYES


Adley, Robert
Chapman, Sydney


Alexander, Richard
Chope, Christopher


Alison, Rt Hon Michael
Churchill, W. S.


Alton, David
Clark, Dr Michael (Rochford)


Amery, Rt Hon Julian
Clark, Sir W. (Croydon S)


Amess, David
Clegg, Sir Walter


Ancram, Michael
Cockeram, Eric


Arnold, Tom
Colvin, Michael


Ashby, David
Conway, Derek


Ashdown, Paddy
Coombs, Simon


Aspinwall, Jack
Cope, John


Atkins, Rt Hon Sir H.
Cranborne, Viscount


Atkins, Robert (South Ribble)
Crouch, David


Atkinson, David (B'rn'th E)
Currie, Mrs Edwina


Baker, Rt Hon K. (Mole Vall'y)
Dickens, Geoffrey


Baker, Nicholas (Dorset N)
Dorrell, Stephen


Batiste, Spencer
Douglas-Hamilton, Lord J.


Bellingham, Henry
du Cann, Rt Hon Sir Edward


Bendall, Vivian
Dunn, Robert


Benyon, William
Durant, Tony


Best, Keith
Edwards, Rt Hon N. (P'broke)


Biffen, Rt Hon John
Eggar, Tim


Blackburn, John
Evennett, David


Blaker, Rt Hon Sir Peter
Eyre, Sir Reginald


Bonsor, Sir Nicholas
Fallon, Michael


Bottomley, Peter
Fenner, Mrs Peggy


Bottomley, Mrs Virginia
Fletcher, Alexander


Bowden, A. (Brighton K'to'n)
Fookes, Miss Janet


Bowden, Gerald (Dulwich)
Forman, Nigel


Boyson, Dr Rhodes
Forsyth, Michael (Stirling)


Brandon-Bravo, Martin
Forth, Eric


Bright, Graham
Fowler, Rt Hon Norman


Brinton, Tim
Fox, Marcus


Brittan, Rt Hon Leon
Franks, Cecil


Brooke, Hon Peter
Fraser, Peter (Angus East)


Brown, M. (Brigg &amp; Cl'thpes)
Freeman, Roger


Browne, John
Freud, Clement


Bruce, Malcolm
Galley, Roy


Bruinvels, Peter
Gardner, Sir Edward (Fylde)


Bryan, Sir Paul
Garel-Jones, Tristan


Buchanan-Smith, Rt Hon A.
Gilmour, Rt Hon Sir Ian


Budgen, Nick
Glyn, Dr Alan


Bulmer, Esmond
Goodhart, Sir Philip


Burt, Alistair
Gow, Ian


Butcher, John
Gower, Sir Raymond


Butler, Rt Hon Sir Adam
Grant, Sir Anthony


Butterfill, John
Greenway, Harry


Campbell-Savours, Dale
Gregory, Conal


Carlisle, John (Luton N)
Griffiths, Peter (Portsm'th N)


Carlisle, Kenneth (Lincoln)
Grist, Ian


Carlisle, Rt Hon M. (W'ton S)
Ground, Patrick


Cartwright, John
Grylls, Michael


Cash, William
Gummer, Rt Hon John S


Channon, Rt Hon Paul
Hamilton, Hon A. (Epsom)





Hamilton, Neil (Tatton)
Maxwell-Hyslop, Robin


Hanley, Jeremy
Mayhew, Sir Patrick


Hannam, John
Mellor, David


Hargreaves, Kenneth
Merchant, Piers


Harris, David
Meyer, Sir Anthony


Haselhurst, Alan
Miller, Hal (B'grove)


Hawkins, C. (High Peak)
Mills, lain (Meriden)


Hawksley, Warren
Miscampbell, Norman


Hayes, J.
Mitchell, David (Hants NW)


Hayhoe, Rt Hon Barney
Montgomery, Sir Fergus


Hayward, Robert
Moore, Rt Hon John


Heath, Rt Hon Edward
Morrison, Hon C. (Devizes)


Heathcoat-Amory, David
Moynihan, Hon C.


Henderson, Barry
Neale, Gerrard


Heseltine, Rt Hon Michael
Nelson, Anthony


Hickmet, Richard
Newton, Tony


Higgins, Rt Hon Terence L.
Nicholls, Patrick


Hind, Kenneth
Norris, Steven


Hogg, Hon Douglas (Gr'th'm)
Onslow, Cranley


Holt, Richard
Oppenheim, Rt Hon Mrs S.


Hordern, Sir Peter
Osborn, Sir John


Howard, Michael
Page, Richard (Herts SW)


Howarth, Gerald (Cannock)
Patten, Christopher (Bath)


Howell, Ralph (Norfolk, N)
Patten, J. (Oxf W &amp; Abgdn)


Hubbard-Miles, Peter
Pattie, Geoffrey


Hughes, Simon (Southwark)
Pawsey, James


Hunt, David (Wirral W)
Percival, Rt Hon Sir Ian


Hunt, John (Ravensbourne)
Pollock, Alexander


Hunter, Andrew
Portillo, Michael


Irving, Charles
Powell, William (Corby)


Jackson, Robert
Powley, John


Jenkin, Rt Hon Patrick
Prentice, Rt Hon Reg


Johnson Smith, Sir Geoffrey
Price, Sir David


Jones, Gwilym (Cardiff N)
Proctor, K. Harvey


Jones, Robert (Herts W)
Pym, Rt Hon Francis


Jopling, Rt Hon Michael
Raison, Rt Hon Timothy


Joseph, Rt Hon Sir Keith
Rathbone, Tim


Kellett-Bowman, Mrs Elaine
Renton, Tim


Kennedy, Charles
Rhodes James, Robert


Kershaw, Sir Anthony
Rhys Williams, Sir Brandon


Key, Robert
Ridley, Rt Hon Nicholas


King, Roger (B'ham N'field)
Ridsdale, Sir Julian


Knight, Greg (Derby N)
Rifkind, Rt Hon Malcolm


Knowles, Michael
Roberts, Wyn (Conwy)


Knox, David
Robinson, Mark (N'port W)


Lamont, Norman
Roe, Mrs Marion


Lang, Ian
Ross, Stephen (Isle of Wight)


Latham, Michael
Rossi, Sir Hugh


Lawler, Geoffrey
Rowe, Andrew


Lawrence, Ivan
Rumbold, Mrs Angela


Lawson, Rt Hon Nigel
Ryder, Richard


Lee, John (Pendle)
Sackville, Hon Thomas


Leigh, Edward (Gainsbor'gh)
Sainsbury, Hon Timothy


Lennox-Boyd, Hon Mark
St. John-Stevas, Rt Hon N.


Lester, Jim
Sayeed, Jonathan


Lewis, Sir Kenneth (Stamf'd)
Scott, Nicholas


Lilley, Peter
Shaw, Giles (Pudsey)


Lloyd, Ian (Havant)
Shaw, Sir Michael (Scarb')


Lloyd, Peter (Fareham)
Shelton, William (Streatham)


Lord, Michael
Shepherd, Colin (Hereford)


Luce, Rt Hon Richard
Shepherd, Richard (Aldridge)


Lyell, Nicholas
Shersby, Michael


McCrindle, Robert
Sims, Roger


McCurley, Mrs Anna
Skeet, Sir Trevor


Macfarlane, Neil
Smith, Tim (Beaconsfield)


MacGregor, Rt Hon John
Soames, Hon Nicholas


MacKay, Andrew (Berkshire)
Speed, Keith


McLoughlin, Patrick
Speller, Tony


McNair-Wilson, M. (N'bury)
Spencer, Derek


McNair-Wilson, P. (New F'st)
Spicer, Jim (Dorset W)


McQuarrie, Albert
Spicer, Michael (S Worcs)


Madel, David
Squire, Robin


Major, John
Stanbrook, Ivor


Malins, Humfrey
Stanley, Rt Hon John


Malone, Gerald
Steel, Rt Hon David


Maples, John
Steen, Anthony


Marlow, Antony
Stern, Michael


Marshall, Michael (Arundel)
Stevens, Lewis (Nuneaton)


Mates, Michael
Stewart, Andrew (Sherwood)


Maude, Hon Francis
Stewart, Ian (Hertf'dshire N)






Sumberg, David
Walters, Dennis


Taylor, John (Solihull)
Wardle, C. (Bexhill)


Tebbit, Rt Hon Norman
Warren, Kenneth


Temple-Morris, Peter
Watson, John


Thatcher, Rt Hon Mrs M.
Watts, John


Thomas, Rt Hon Peter
Wells, Bowen (Hertford)


Thompson, Donald (Calder V)
Wheeler, John


Thompson, Patrick (N'ich N)
Whitfield, John


Thornton, Malcolm
Whitney, Raymond


Thurnham, Peter
Winterton, Mrs Ann


Townend, John (Bridlington)
Winterton, Nicholas


Townsend, Cyril D. (B'heath)
Wolfson, Mark


Tracey, Richard
Wood, Timothy


Twinn, Dr Ian
Woodcock, Michael


Vaughan, Sir Gerard
Wrigglesworth, Ian


Viggers, Peter
Yeo, Tim


Waddington, David
Young, Sir George (Acton)


Wakeham, Rt Hon John
Younger, Rt Hon George


Walden, George



Walker, Bill (T'side N)
Tellers for the Ayes:


Wall, Sir Patrick
Mr. Carol Mather and


Wallace, James
Mr. Robert Boscawen.


Waller, Gary





NOES


Aitken, Jonathan
Clelland, David Gordon


Atkinson, N. (Tottenham)
Cohen, Harry


Banks, Tony (Newham NW)
Corbyn, Jeremy


Beckett, Mrs Margaret
Cormack, Patrick


Benn, Rt Hon Tony
Cox, Thomas (Tooting)


Bermingham, Gerald
Craigen, J. M.


Bidwell, Sydney
Crowther, Stan


Canavan, Dennis
Deakins, Eric


Clay, Robert
Douglas, Dick





Eastham, Ken
Nellist, David


Farr, Sir John
Pike, Peter


Faulds, Andrew
Rees, Rt Hon Peter (Dover)


Field, Frank (Birkenhead)
Roberts, Allan (Bootle)


Foot, Rt Hon Michael
Sedgemore, Brian


Godman, Dr Norman
Silkin, Rt Hon J.


Hancock, Michael
Skinner, Dennis


Harrison, Rt Hon Walter
Spearing, Nigel


Lewis, Terence (Worsley)
Strang, Gavin


Lloyd, Tony (Stretford)
Taylor, Teddy (S'end E)


McNamara, Kevin
Young, David (Bolton SE)


Madden, Max



Maynard, Miss Joan
Tellers for the Noes:


Mikardo, Ian
Mr. Roger Gale and


Millan, Rt Hon Bruce
Mr. Roger Moate.

Question accordingly agreed to.

Bill read a Second time.

CORRIGENDUM

Official Report, 3 June 1986. c. 773, at the end of Mr. Sedgemore's speech insert:

I am being denied the right to speak on that, and I finish my speech.*
* See Vol. 99, column 25.

Orders of the Day — Channel Tunnel Bill (Committal)

Mr. David Winnick: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. It is reported on the tape that the hon. Member for Lancashire, West (Mr. Hind) has sent a letter to a large number of his hon. Friends urging them to delay business tonight—to "filibuster", the word he has used — to ensure that my hon. Friend the Member for Linlithgow (Mr. Dalyell) will not have an opportunity tomorrow to move the motion which stands in his name. This matter was raised earlier in the day.
I hope that you will agree, Mr. Speaker, that such a filibuster would represent a disgraceful attempt by Conservative Members to deny one of my hon. Friends, who has been successful in the Ballot, the opportunity to debate the subject of his choice. Will the Leader of the House, who is in his place, say whether this filibuster is being actively encouraged by the Government?
It is clear that the letter of which I spoke has been sent out by the hon. Member for Lancashire, West and that it contains the word "filibuster". That hon. Gentleman says in it that, should tomorrow's debate go ahead, Opposition Members would have a platform from which to attack the Prime Minister. Have we reached the stage when an hon. Member cannot debate an issue, having won a place in the Ballot, because to do so would embarrass the Government?

Mr. Speaker: That is not really a point of order.

Mr. Robin Maxwell-Hyslop: Is it not a point of order?

Mr. Speaker: That was not a matter for the Chair. I know nothing about letters that may or may not have been sent out.

Mr. Cecil Franks: You will be as aware as hon. Members, Mr. Speaker, that the second motion for debate tomorrow stands in my name and is about the privatisation of local government services. I know, Mr. Speaker, that you are unaware of such matters as three-line Whips, but the Government have been kind enough to give me a three-line Whip tomorrow so that my hon. Friends can be here to support my motion. Having listened to the hon. Member for Walsall, North (Mr. Winnick), I am worried that, if what he said is correct, my opportunity to take part in the second debate tomorrow may be missed. I understand from the hon. Member for Linlithgow (Mr. Dalyell), who shares my wish that the debate on the privatisation of local government services should take place, that he intends to keep his remarks to an absolute minimum. I look to you, Mr. Speaker, for protection.

Mr. Speaker: The sooner we get on with this debate, the more likely we shall be to get to the motion of the hon. Member for Barrow and Furness (Mr. Franks).

Mr. Peter Shore: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. This is a serious matter. Questions were put to the Lord Privy Seal this afternoon about whether or not what I described as a disgraceful manoeuvre was to be organised during the course of this evening and tonight in order to eliminate the debate that is to take place tomorrow. We now know from the letter,

which has apparently been published and which came from the hon. Member for Lancashire, West (Mr. Hind), that Government Whips take the view that this must be a Back-Bench filibuster. We have a right to ask the Lord Privy Seal whether he was aware of this manoeuvre when he answered questions this afternoon, and whether he will take an opportunity to condemn what is undoubtedly a disgraceful and squalid manoeuvre.

Mr. Maxwell-Hyslop: The right hon. Member for Bethnal Green and Stepney (Mr. Shore) has asked about something that you, Mr. Speaker, have ruled is not a point of order. That prevents you, Mr. Speaker, from telling the House whether, unknown to the Labour Front Bench, you have had any representation from the Labour Whips asking you to do exactly what you will do.

Mr. Max Madden: The point of order by the Hon. Member for Tiverton (Mr. Maxwell-Hyslop) was a hybrid one.
On a point of order which I hope is a proper point of order, Mr. Speaker, can you advise us whether it is within the power of the Leader of the House, if he so wishes, to table a motion which would allow business tabled for tomorrow to be taken at any hour if the filibuster that is being talked about takes place tonight? Can you tell us, Mr. Speaker, whether that power is available to the Leader of the House if he wishes to exercise it?

Mr. Speaker: It is not for me to organise Government business.

Mr. Roger Gale: Further to the original point of order raised by the hon. Member for Walsall, North (Mr. Winnick), it was suggested that discussion of the committal proceedings on the Channel Tunnel Bill is in some way a filibuster. Those hon. Members who have been in the Chamber all day will know that hon. Members, and especially those hon. Members from north-east Kent, feel strongly about the Channel tunnel. Forty-five hon. Members, many of them from the Opposition Benches, have just demonstrated that strength of feeling by voting against Second Reading. We deeply resent the suggestion that the debate that we wish to take place at considerable length is called a filibuster.

Mr. Douglas Hogg: I should like to raise a quite separate point of order about the way in which our proceedings tonight are to be conducted. I understand that the Minister responding to the individual amendment and the group of amendments is my hon. Friend the Minister of State, Department of Transport. All right hon. and hon. Members know that my hon. Friend is a very good Transport Minister, but I am not aware—though he will tell me if I am wrong—that he is a great expert in matters constitutional or in matters legal. What we are being asked to discuss tonight is wholly different from what lies within the compass of his Department. Looking at the committal motion and bearing in mind that we are talking about a hybrid measure that affects private interests to a very marked and substantial degree, I am extremely uneasy that a Minister of State who is not versed in constitutional and legal matters should be replying for the Government.
I appreciate that the choice of those who are to speak from the Front Benches is not a matter for you, Mr. Speaker. On the other hand, the House may well feel that it would profit from the advice of my right hon. Friend the


Leader of the House, my right hon. and learned Friend the Attorney-General, my hon. and learned Friend the Solicitor-General and, indeed, my right hon. and noble Friend the Lord Chancellor, were he able to appear in this place. I do not in any way want to be thought to be partisan—you know, Mr. Speaker, that I am never partisan—but I am very anxious that we should also have the opportunity to hear the words of the shadow Leader of the House, not to mention the words of the right hon. and learned Member for Aberavon (Mr. Morris). —[Interruption.] I have not quite finished.

Mr. Speaker: Order. The hon. Member for Grantham (Mr. Hogg) said a moment ago that he knew that it was not a matter for me. He is absolutely right.

Mr. Hogg: rose——

Mr. Speaker: Order. The points that the hon. Gentleman is now making would be much better made during his speech, if he is fortunate enough to catch the——

Mr. Hogg: rose——

Mr. Speaker: Order—if he is fortunate enough to catch the eye of the Chair during these proceedings. I take fully into account what has already been said about tomorrow's debate by both Government and Opposition Members. The sooner that we can get on with this debate, the better the chance that we shall reach the important Back-Bench motions.

Mr. Hogg: I apologise for rising again on a point of order, but I was conscious of the fact that until I had reached the point that I have now reached I was, as it were, only laying the foundations for my point of order.
My real point of order is that the choice of Front Bench spokesmen is clearly a matter for the Front Benches of each party. I suggest that there should be an opportunity for consultation between the Front Benches, which would take place through the usual channels. For that purpose, it would be necessary to adjourn this sitting. The point of order that I am putting to you, Mr. Speaker, is that you should adjourn this sitting so that the Front Benches can consult through the normal channels.

Mr. Speaker: I am not prepared to accept that suggestion.

Mr. Michael Brown: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. I am a member of a private Bill Committee which during its proceedings has received evidence from a Government Department. I am very concerned that a Minister who represents the Department of Transport should be responding on behalf of the Government when it is quite possible that when the rules for the private Bill Committee have been framed, on the recommendation of a Department of Transport Minister, witnesses will be called from the Department of Transport, probably by the promoters of the Bill.
It seems to me that it would be very unfair to the petitioners against the Bill if they found that the promoters of the Bill were calling as witnesses representatives from the Department of Transport, who would have an advantage over the petitioners, through the motion that my hon. Friend the Minister of State intends to move. The motion would remove the impartiality of the private Bill procedure if the rules were to be framed, on motions emanating from the Department of Transport, by their

Minister here, because officials of the Department of Transport will be appearing as witnesses for the promoters and therefore the petitioners will not have a fair opportunity to present their case.

Mr. Speaker: The hon. Gentleman asked a hypothetical question, and in any case we are discussing a Government measure.
We now come to the committal motion for the Channel Tunnel Bill. I have published a list of selected amendments and the proposed groupings, and I wish to explain how the debate will proceed. Although motions such as this appear as one motion on the Order Paper, they are made up of separate propositions, each of which is a motion in its own right. I propose that each motion—that is to say, each paragraph beginning with the word "That" — should be moved separately and debated, together with the amendments that have been grouped with it. At the end of each debate, amendments to that paragraph may be moved formally, and when they have been disposed of the Question will be put on the paragraph as a whole. In this way, I believe that we can have a more orderly debate and the House will be aware at each stage which issue is being discussed.
We come to the first motion, which is in lines 1 to 3 on the Order Paper, with which it will be convenient to discuss amendments (a) and (b). I call Mr. David Mitchell.

The Minister of State, Department of Transport (Mr. David Mitchell): rose——

Mr. Andrew Bowden: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. As I understand it, what you have just ruled means that we are dividing the motion into several isolated and separate sections and debating those accordingly. Will there be an opportunity for the House to debate the motion as a whole? I submit that the parts of the motion hold together and make a complete picture and that there should be some stage during the proceedings when we have the opportunity of debating the complete motion.

Mr. Speaker: I hope that I have made it clear to the House that to ensure good order in the debate I have divided the motion. These are five separate motions. The whole motion will be debated, but in good order, with the amendments which appear on the Order Paper.

Mr. Douglas Hogg: Further to that point of order, Mr. Speaker. As I understand it, you have an ultimate discretion as to how the debate should be conducted. I support the remarks of my hon. Friend the Member for Brighton, Kemptown (Mr. Bowden). Although it is perfectly true that the formula that you have set out enables the House to criticise or scrutinise the committal motion paragraph by paragraph, the House is unable to take a broad view. At some stage during tonight's debate, the House should be enabled to take a broad view on such essential matters. It is within your discretion, Mr. Speaker, to enable the House to vote on the motion in its totality. May I ask you to invoke that discretion?

Mr. Speaker: The hon. Gentleman will have his opportunity to do that on the first motion, which is that the Bill be committed to a Select Committee.

Mr. Eric Forth (Mid-Worcestershire): Further to that point of order, Mr. Speaker. In view of what you have just said, if the House votes in principle at the beginning, what account can it take of what may subsequently happen in


the votes on the amendments? What my hon. Friend the Member for Brighton, Kemptown (Mr. Bowden) meant was that the House should have an opportunity, after it has considered and voted on each of the separate propositions and amendments thereto, to consider the proposition as a whole, as amended. My hon. Friend is correct in asking you to consider giving the House, after dealing with the amendments in the way that you have so kindly allowed us to do, an opportunity to debate and vote on the matter as a whole.

Mr. Maxwell-Hyslop: Further to that point of order, Mr. Speaker. My hon. Friend the Member for Mid-Worcestershire (Mr. Forth) referred to the motion, as amended. You are being asked to rule hypothetically on what would happen if the motion were amended. The points that have been put to you would be properly put if any of the amendments were carried, but they are prematurely put to you before the House has decided on any of those amendments. May I respectfully suggest that the questions put to you do not arise unless and until, after the sectional debate, an amendment has been carried?

Mr. Speaker: That is entirely correct. In order to save any further time being spent on this, I must say that this is well precedented and has been frequently done before. I believe that it is in the best interests of the debate to deal with it in this way.

Mr. Douglas Hogg: Further to the point of order, Mr. Speaker. In the presentation of my argument, I did not make myself wholly clear. My hon. Friend the Member for Mid-Worcestershire (Mr. Forth) put my argument even more clearly than I did. I owe you, Mr. Speaker, and the House an apology.
My hon. Friend the Member for Tiverton (Mr. Maxwell-Hyslop) is clearly right. What you are suggesting, Mr. Speaker, is that we can debate the totality of the committal motion in the first debate. That would be splendid if there were no amendments. What I respectfully suggest, Mr. Speaker, is that you do not come to a hard and fast decision on this matter, but that if any amendments be made in the course of tonight's debate I or some other hon. Member may renew the application, and you will consider it then.

Mr. Speaker: Most certainly.

Mr. Tony Marlow: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. May I go back to the very serious point that was raised by the hon. Member for Walsall, North (Mr. Winnick) when——

Mr. Speaker: Order. We have disposed of that. We cannot back deal on it. I have dealt with it.

Mr. Marlow: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. It has been suggested that the debate may carry on too long and put at risk the motions due to be debated tomorrow. If that appeared to be the case—and I doubt whether it would be, because it is a very important matter that we are debating—would it not be possible for hon. Members to ask that we report progress if it was felt that there was any danger of tomorrow's important business being lost? Were that the case, the House surely would be able to take a view on that and would itself be able to safeguard the business.

Mr. Speaker: Order. The hon. Gentleman is merely repeating what was said earlier this afternoon when I stated that that would be perfectly in order.

Sir John Farr: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. Through the usual channels, some of us who have sat here all day and who tried to speak in the debate on Second Reading but were not successful were informed that, if we did not press our claim so that the vote on Second Reading could take place at about 10 o'clock, the subsequent proceedings would be fairly flexible and the grounds of the debate on the four groups of amendments would not be too narrow.
May I ask, Mr. Speaker, whether you will give the necessary instructions that, when some of us who have sat here all day but were not called in the debate on Second Reading may be successful in catching the eye of the Chair, we are not called to order too strictly because for a second or two we depart from the narrow track of one of the amendments?

Mr. Speaker: It would be very dangerous, I think, for the House to invite me to say that Members do not have to confine themselves to the motion on the Order Paper, but I draw the attention of the hon. Gentleman to the first motion that we are about to discuss, which is wide,
That the Bill be committed to a Select Committee".
I am well aware that the hon. Gentleman and a number of other hon. Members have been sitting in the Chamber hoping to take part in the debate on Second Reading. They will get precedence later this evening — maybe early tomorrow morning.

The Minister of State, Department of Transport (Mr. David Mitchell): I beg to move,
That the Bill be committed to a Select Committee of nine Members to be nominated by the Committee of Selection.

Mr. Robert Hughes: rose——

Mr. Douglas Hogg: rose——

Mr. David Mitchell: It was my intention to move the motion briefly, as I have, and to reply to the debate. I understand that my hon. Friend the Member for Grantham (Mr. Hogg) and the hon. Member for Aberdeen, North (Mr. Hughes) were seeking to catch your eye, Mr. Deputy Speaker.

Mr. Hughes: I simply want to inquire whether I shall be called to move amendments (a) and (b), which have been selected.

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Ernest Armstrong): No. They will be moved formally at the end. The hon. Gentleman may speak to the motion.

Mr. Hughes: In the interests of progress, I do not intend to move amendments (a) and (b).

Mr. Richard Hickmet: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. We have just had a number of points of order relating to the relevance of sections of the motion as proposed to be amended. Would it be in order for my hon. Friend the Minister to reply to the whole debate at the end of our proceedings, whenever that may come, in relation to parts of the motion, as amended? Would it be in order for him at the end of the proceedings to answer on all parts of the motion, as amended or not?

Mr. Deputy Speaker: I thought that Mr. Speaker made a clear statement to the House as to how we will proceed. The motions will be discussed in turn.

Mr. Douglas Hogg: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I should very much appreciate your guidance before the House commences this debate. I understand from what the hon. Member for Aberdeen, North (Mr. Hughes) has just said that he will not formally move amendments (a) and (b). I have put my name to amendments (a) and (b). I should like clarification from you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, on whether it is open to me to move them.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Yes; the hon. Gentleman will be allowed to move them at the end of the debate. We can have a full debate on the first paragraph, as said by Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Franks: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. About half an hour ago I said to Mr. Speaker that I was concerned that the debate tomorrow on the second motion, standing in my name, was in jeopardy. The more I listen to these points of order——

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. The hon. Gentleman knows very well that Mr. Speaker has already dealt with that matter. He should not waste the time of the House by raising it again.

Mr. Michael Brown: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. May I have clarification? I am a supporter of amendments (a) and (b), in the name of the Leader of the Opposition. Having heard you say to my hon. Friend the Member for Grantham (Mr. Hogg) that it will be in order for him to move those amendments formally at the proper time, may I ask——

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. As I have said, I thought that Mr. Speaker had made a clear statement. We will discuss the proposition and hon. Members may refer to the amendments, but the amendments will be moved formally at the end of the debate. There is no bother about that.

Mr. Brown: My question is simple, and I can summarise it in one sentence. Will it be in order, in debating the motion in the name of the Secretary of State for Transport, to refer to amendments (a) and (b)?

Mr. Deputy Speaker: There is a simple answer to that simple question: yes.

Mr. Andrew Bowden: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I am getting rather confused. When Mr. Speaker was in the Chair, he said, as I understood it, that we would debate the first three lines of the motion and the amendments together. As the amendments have not yet been moved, how can we debate them at the same time? Therefore, can we not debate the motion as it stands as a whole rather than in sections?

Mr. Deputy Speaker: I must remind the hon. Gentleman that we are having a joint debate, as happens often in the House. It is not necessary to move the amendments formally now. I thought that Mr. Speaker had made it very clear. He proposed that each paragraph beginning with the word "That" should be moved separately and debated with the amendments grouped with it.

Mr. Ivan Lawrence: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. You are, of course, the guardian of the

interests of Back Benchers, and in your high capacity you also ensure that the procedures of the House are not abused in any way.
It appears that the Government are proposing that, following Second Reading, the Channel Tunnel Bill be committed to a Select Committee of nine members, but they are not prepared to explain to people such as myself—innocent Back Benchers who have just come into the Chamber to hear the arguments—the basis for making that committal. I look forward to hearing a speech from the Minister explaining the basis for the committal so that I can form a judgment on it and decide within the powers that I have as a Back Benc her which way to vote. To my absolute astonishment, the Minister sat down without giving any reason. That must be an abuse of parliamentary procedure.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. Fortunately, the Minister's speech is not a matter for me.

Mr. Douglas Hogg: Further to that point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I wish to support my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Burton (Mr. Lawrence). This is a most extraordinary procedure, and I say that with great respect to my hon. Friend the Minister. We are dealing with a hybrid Bill that affects private interests and individuals. What we are setting out now is the method, formula and timetable for disposing of people's private rights.
I understand that it does not usually fall within the competence of the Minister of State, Department of Transport, to speak on these matters. I appreciate that and do not blame him. However, in support of what my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Burton said, I say that this House needs positive guidance and precedent as to the constitutional implications, the parties' legal rights and what we are about. My hon. Friend the Minister, for whom I have very great respect, does not wish to do that tonight. Therefore, we should adjourn so that my right hon and learned Friend the Attorney-General can come to this place and tell us what is going on. Alternatively, my right hon. Friend the Leader of the House, who is present, could do that admirably. I hate to wake him from his slumbers; he looks so attractive when he is asleep.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. The hon. Gentleman knows that the way in which the Minister handles the affair is not a matter for the Chair. I suggest that the House is ready to press on with the procedure motion.

Mr. Hogg: Further to that point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I never argue with the Chair, as you know, but we are dealing with the rights of private individuals who are affected to a very real degree. My hon. Friend the Minister——

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. The hon. Gentleman is pursuing the way in which the Minister has handled the affair, which is not a matter for the Chair.

Mr. Hogg: Further to that point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I would never do that, as you know well. always put points of order that fall exclusively within the jurisdiction of the Chair.
The jurisdiction of the Chair is to protect the rights of individual Back Benchers and, perhaps more important, the dignity and standing of this place. I do not see how we can debate private rights of this moment and consequence unless we have guidance from those Ministers——

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. The hon. Gentleman is again pursuing matters that are not for the Chair. It is not——

Mr. Hogg: rose——

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. The hon. Gentleman must resume his seat. It is not a matter for the Chair.

Mr. Forth: Further to that point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. Can you give us some further guidance on this matter and help me by confirming that once we follow the proposed procedure, whereby speeches on the motion will be made and then the Minister will speak, it will be in order for hon. Members to speak again in the light of what the Minister has said? That might go some of the way towards helping my hon. Friend the Member for Grantham (Mr. Hogg). Will that be in order?

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. Further speeches from hon. Members will not be in order.

Mr. Maxwell-Hyslop: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I listened carefully to what Mr. Speaker said, and I do not think that he envisaged the possibility that the amendment might not be moved. It might be for the great convenience of the House if the amendment were moved formally. If one signatory to the amendment does not want to move it, others can. It would be for the convenience of the House if the assumption that Mr. Speaker clearly made in announcing this procedural decision bore fruit by the technical movement of the amendment now. There are separate motions but only one motion in the name of the Secretary of State for Transport. It is therefore only possible to divide matters up in the way Mr. Speaker has divided matters, on the assumption that the amendments are moved. If any of the amendments are not moved, Mr. Speaker's assumption is nullified and the motion cannot be divided. I recommend, with the greatest respect, Mr. Deputy Speaker, that the amendment be moved, at least formally, so that debate can take place on the basis that Mr. Speaker clearly assumed and anticipated in his statement to the House.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: I have listened very carefully to the hon. Gentleman and I have a high regard for his concern about the procedures of the House. However, I must reiterate Mr. Speaker's words:
I propose that each motion—that is to say, each paragraph beginning with the word 'That'—should be moved separately and debated, together with the amendments that have been grouped with it.
For instance, there are no amendments to the third motion.
At the end of each debate, amendments to that paragraph may be moved formally, and when they have been disposed of the Question will be put on the paragraph as a whole.
That seems to be a sensible way of interpreting the orders and the discretion of the Chair. I think we should now proceed.

Mr. David Mitchell: rose——

Mr. Maxwell-Hyslop: Further to that point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. With the greatest respect, I do not think that Mr. Speaker, in making that announcement to the House, anticipated that amendments might not be moved. The House needs to know whether it will be debating each section beginning with the word "That" which encompasses the amendments which Mr. Speaker, by announcing his selection of amendments, clearly anticipated. It would be best if the House could know

immediately whether the amendment will be moved. If not, we are doomed to have two debates on each section rather than one: one on the section beginning with the word "That," and another when it is moved formally. If it is moved formally, the Chair will be unable to deny a debate after the formal moving. There will therefore be two debates on each section rather than one. I do not think that Mr. Speaker envisaged that when he made his statement.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: As I understand it, the hon. Member for Grantham (Mr. Hogg), who is a signatory to amendments (a) and (b), has already said that he is willing to move those amendments. Whether the others are moved is a hypothetical question which we shall deal when we come to them.

Mr. Douglas Hogg: Further to that point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. With respect, my hon. Friend the Member for Tiverton (Mr. Maxwell-Hyslop) is correct. The provision is that if amendments (a) and (b) are moved only at the conclusion of the debate, until we reach that magic moment we will be debating the substantive motion only. Accordingly, when, and if, I move amendment (a) we will have a fresh debate. Would it not be far better to allow me to move amendments (a) and (b) now so that we can have an open debate that would encompasss the totality of what Mr. Speaker had in mind?

Mr. Deputy Speaker: The hon. Gentleman knows that we discuss amendments again and again without them being moved formally or without them being moved. The hon. Gentleman will be able to refer to the amendments if we can proceed to discuss paragraph 1, and we should do that now.

Mr. Mark Wolfson: Following the ruling which you have now reconfirmed, Mr. Deputy Speaker, which was given earlier by Mr. Speaker, as one of the hon. Members sat through the earlier debate, I crave the indulgence of the Chair and ask that we be allowed to get on with the debate on the first motion now.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Mr. Speaker said that he had taken into consideration those who have been here all day. The Minister is anxious to intervene.

Mr. David Mitchell: It might be for the convenience of the House if I went a little further than I did when I first got to my feet. My intention then was formally to open the debate and allow it to proceed on the amendments and on the substantive motion in the form selected by Mr. Speaker. From the points of order, it is apparent that a number of my hon. Friends are a little perplexed by the procedure which is being followed. It is perhaps true to say that this is not a procedure that we follow on frequent occasions. Perhaps I should say that we are now about to debate the committal motion, and its basic role is to set up the Select Committee.
After Second Reading of the Channel Tunnel Bill it is proposed:
That the Bill be committed to a Select Committee of nine Members to be nominated by the Committee of Selection:
That there shall stand referred to the Select Committee—
(a) any Petition against the Bill presented by being deposited in the Private Bill Office at any time not later than 17th June——

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. The hon. Gentleman is now going to the second motion. He should stick to the first.

Mr. Mitchell: The complexities of procedure are such that I have gone further than I should at this stage, and I apologise. I am as anxious as other hon. Members to make progress in this matter.

Mr. Michael Brown: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. You will recall that my hon. Friend the Member for Grantham (Mr. Hogg) raised with the Chair the possibility of a Law Officer or the Leader of the House being in their places in order to recognise the fact that we are talking about procedural matters. He said that my hon. Friend the Minister of State, with all due deference to his ministerial abilities, is not the proper, competent Minister to deal with what is essentially a procedural matter.
You have just told my hon. Friend the Minister, Mr. Deputy Speaker, that he should not be pursuing a debate at this stage on the second motion. On the basis of that injunction from you, I strongly submit that we would save ourselves a great deal of time if he could be guided and assisted by somebody from the Government Front Bench who is experienced in the constitutional and procedural matters of the House. For example, the Leader of the House should surely be in his place to assist and guide us, because if my hon. Friend the Minister finds himself in another difficulty we shall find ourselves——

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. The hon. Gentleman is repeating what has already been made clear to Mr. Speaker, and, indeed, to me. The hon. Gentleman knows that it is not a matter for me which Minister is to open or reply to a debate.
I remind the House what is before it. I have already put the Question on the motion,
That the Bill be committed to a Select Committee of nine Members to he nominated by the Committee of Selection".
Amendments (a) and (b) have been tabled and we shall discuss those with the motion that I have read out.

Mr. Mitchell: I am grateful to you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, for having clarified the matter. It is clear that we are now debating the motion,
That the Bill be committed to a Select Committee of nine Members to he nominated by the Committee of Selection".
I understand that amendments (a) and (b) have been tabled, and it was my intention to reply to those. Am I right in understanding that, quite apart from the question whether the amendments are moved or not, I shall have the opportunity to reply to the debate on the terms of the motion selected by Mr. Speaker?
Before you took the Chair, Mr. Deputy Speaker, a number of hon. Members raised with Mr. Speaker the fact that they had sat through the earlier debate and were not able to participate in it, but expressed the hope that they would be able to do so now. I am concerned because I know that there are some points of substance which hon. Members wish to have clarified, and I am anxious not to mislead them into assuming that I will be able to reply to those points later if I will not be able to do so. I understood from Mr. Speaker that he would allow a fairly wide ranging debate on the first of the amendments so that there would be an opportunity for hon. Members who were cut out of the debate earlier to participate and for the debate to be properly concluded.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: I was in the Chamber when Mr. Speaker made his statement and replied to the points of order. He said that the first motion, which refers the Bill to a Select Committee, would give an opportunity for

those hon. Members who are acquainted with the procedures of the House to participate, and, no doubt, they will use the procedures accordingly. However, that does not mean that they can get out of order. That would be for the Chair to decide. I cannot rule hypothetically by saying that anything that hon. Members raise will be permitted. However, it is a fairly wide motion, which is to decide whether to commit the Bill to a Select Committee. I have no doubt that those who were here during the debate this afternon will be able to relate their comments accordingly.

Mr. Mitchell: We are debating the motion, That the Bill be committed to a Select Committee of nine members, and there are amendments to increase the number to 11. That is where the debate will now take place.

Mr. Roger Stott: You will recall, Mr. Deputy Speaker, that my hon. Friend the Member for Aberdeen, North (Mr. Hughes), in a brief intervention in the interest of moving the debate forward, told the House that he did not wish to move the two amendments to increase the number on the Select Committee. As I understand it, it is permissible for the House to debate the substantive motion, but I must make it clear that we have not moved those two amendments in the interest of progress.

Mr. Douglas Hogg: The hon. Gentleman is wasting time.

Mr. Stott: If anybody is wasting time it is certainly not the Opposition. We have not moved those amendments. The Chair will decide what the debate will be about in the light of what we have not moved.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Perhaps I should clarify the position. I have said that the debate will be on the motion and that we can consider the amendments. It will be for any hon. Member at the end of the debate to move an amendment formally if he so desires.

Mr. William Cash: Is it not irresponsible and an abuse of procedure for Opposition Members to table amendments and then not seek to move them simply in order to make a political point?

Mr. Deputy Speaker: All kinds of things happen in the House from time to time.

Mr. Andrew Faulds: On a further point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. If my hon. Friends on the Front Bench have failed to move amendments they have put on the Order Paper, would it be in order for other hon. Members to move them so that we can get on?

Mr. Deputy Speaker: I thought that I had made that perfectly clear. We are to have a general debate, including the amendments. If any hon. Member wants to move the amendments at the end of the debate, that will be in order. They will have to be moved formally, of course.

Mr. Nicholas Winterton: On a further point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I wish to see these proceedings speeded up, as I am sure you do. Am I correct in assuming, with reference to the answer you gave to the hon. Member for Warley, East (Mr. Faulds), that if a Conservative Member, while speaking to the substantive motion, makes specific reference to the amendments.. you will not rule him out of order because that is part of the argument——

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. I thought that I had made that clear a number of times.

Mr. Douglas Hogg: It seems to me that the time has come for these amendments to be moved, and I should like——

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. Again the hon. Gentleman is wasting the time of the House. I have made it quite clear that we can go ahead with the general debate, including the amendments, which can be referred to. At the end of the debate, I shall ask whether the amendments are to be moved.

Mr. Hogg: rose——

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. I hope that the hon. Gentleman is not pursuing the point.

Mr. Hogg: No, I am not, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I am trying to catch your eye. Will you forgive me for asking whether you called me?

Mr. Deputy Speaker: The hon. Gentleman must not tempt me.

Mr. Hogg: I am grateful to you, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I was in some doubt about whether I had been called to speak on the motion.
I am deeply concerned about the position that the Opposition have adopted. Those of us who are concerned about private rights—and however one looks at the Bill it affects private rights to a considerable and grave extent — are deeply concerned that the Labour party, which presumably thought that it was making points of immediate consequence——

Mr. Maxwell-Hyslop: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I understand that my hon. Friend the Member for Grantham (Mr. Hogg) is under the impression that he has been called by you to speak in the debate, but he is under a misapprehension. I understood that you had called my hon. Friend the Minister of State, whom the House wanted to hear on the general question, to open the debate, but you are now under the impression that my hon. Friend the Member for Grantham is speaking on a point of order, and he thought that he was not.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman. Had the Minister finished his speech?

Mr. David Mitchell: I had finished explaining to the House what we are about, and I shall now sit down to listen to the debate, and reply later.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: I have already proposed the Question, so the hon. Member for Grantham (Mr. Hogg) is making his speech.

Mr. Douglas Hogg: I am extremely grateful——

Mr. Ian Gow: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I think that I heard my hon. Friend the Minister of State ask you whether at the end of the debate he would be able to reply on behalf of the Government, but I did not hear your response to that.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: I thank the hon. Gentleman. The Minister will be able to reply, as he has that right.

Mr. Hogg: I apologise to my hon. Friend the Member for Tiverton (Mr. Maxwell-Hyslop) in that I clearly did not make my commencing remarks sufficiently clear. I see that I might be thought to be raising a point of order, but I was seeking to make the preamble to my speech.

I am concerned about the position that the Labour party has adopted in this matter. However one looks at the issue and the motion before the House, this is inevitably a matter of great concern to the people of Kent. The procedure that we are adopting touches private rights to a profound degree. More than that, it goes behind the normal procedures that are adopted in such development planning. Therefore, it was right that the Labour party tabled these amendments. It was because we shared its concern that I and others, for example, my hon. Friend the Member for Brigg and Cleethorpes (Mr. Brown) put our names to these amendments.
I suspected that there was something funny about the Labour party's amendments and attitude when I put my name to the amendments. I am not one whit surprised that the Labour party Benches are so empty and that it has but one Front Bench spokesman. What does it suppose it is doing? The Leader of the Opposition, the shadow Chancellor of the Exchequer, the shadow Secretary of State for Employment, the shadow Leader of the House, and Uncle Tom Cobbleigh and all put their names to amendments that affect people's lives, do not move them, and go away.
What kind of nonsense and claptrap is this? Why are they treating the people of Kent in this way? Ah, we have another Labour party Back Bencher. We now have four Members of the Labour party present, so the people of Kent——

Mr. Faulds: The hon. Member for Southwark and Bermondsey (Mr. Hughes) is not one of us.

Mr. Hogg: We have three and a half members of the Labour party and the alliance. That is the way in which they are treating a matter that is of profound concern to the people of Kent.
I have a fairly agnostic view of the Channel tunnel, but one thing that I am not agnostic about, and never have been, is that we should be very careful to ensure that private rights are protected. Whatever we do in this matter —I tend to think that the Channel tunnel is necessary and desirable—it will have profound consequences for the constituents of my hon. Friend the Member for Thanet, South (Mr. Aitken) and all the other constituents represented in this place. To find that the debate is not being participated in by the Labour party is a shame and a humiliation to that party.

Mr. Gow: In the marvellous invective to which my hon. Friend has treated the House, is there not one omission? He has not referred to the absence from the House of Members of the Social Democratic party. Will my hon. Friend please direct his invective to that absence, as well as to the absence of others?

Mr. Hogg: I am grateful to my hon. Friend the Member for Eastbourne (Mr. Gow). The only reason why I did not direct my fire at the SDP for its absence is that its Members are never here. The House has become used to their absence. We do not particularly want to see them any more.
As for the Liberal party, it is always very nice to see the hon. Member for Southwark and Bermondsey (Mr. Hughes). He is quite a very good attender. That singles him out from the rest of his brethen, who are not here tonight. I wonder whether they will be voting here tonight. I do not see anybody on the SDP Benches. They will not be voting tonight. What about——

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. I have listened very carefully to the hon. Member's preamble. He really ought to get to the meat of the motion.

Mr. Hogg: Mr. Deputy-Speaker, you are as always wholly right. May I say to you, if I have by any chance transgressed, that I am extremely sorry.
The point that I am making is a serious one. We are dealing with the rights of individuals. I do not think that the Select Committee procedure is an appropriate way of dealing with private rights. We shall come in a moment to subsequent amendments about dates, but a whole range of private rights will be touched on, affected and sometimes diminished. The most obvious ones are rights of property, where there are compulsory purchase orders, and questions of diminished values or blight, but many other rights will be touched upon. There will be diminished employment, diminished employment prospects, diminished trade, and damage to the environment. A whole host of rights will be touched on.
I do not see how a Committee of nine, even nine highly effective and well-informed hon. Members, will be able to determine whether the Bill affects those rights to an extent that we should amend the Bill. If we are to do it in that way. surely we are contemplating sitting for months and months. Worse than that, the petitioners — — [Interruption.]

Mr. Gerald Bermingham: Perhaps the hon. Gentleman will address his hon. Friends.

Mr. Hogg: I was addressing those present in the House —the hon. Gentleman and my hon. Friends. It must be said that, with five exceptions, the Labour Party— — [Interruption.]

Mr. Faulds: We all appreciate the hon. Gentleman's literacy, but he seems to be innumerate.

Mr. Hogg: I have never regarded the hon. Member for Warley, East (Mr. Faulds) as a full Member of the Labour party. When I add up the numbers, I never give him a complete digit.

Mr. Faulds: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman. It is late at night, and he has probably had a cup or two, as I have. I welcome the goodly fellow making pleasant chat, but he must not call in question my 20 years of very loyal service to my party, about which there is no question.

Mr. Hogg: That is the only thing concerning the hon. Gentleman about which there is no question.

Mr. Faulds: The hon. Gentleman is obviously unworldly and out of touch with the realities of his colleagues' lives. I am extraordinarily close to the realities of a range of issues, and I am normal.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. I think that we should return to debating the motion.

Mr. Hogg: I feel that we are straying from the straight and narrow ways on which the hon. Member wished to keep us. I am making a serious point. We are talking about rights. We are talking about money and property interests, employment prospects and the environment. I do not believe that such a development can be considered properly by a Select Committee. I do not think that we can go forward in that way.
If we are to go forward in such a way, we need to have as large a Select Committee as we can muster. We need

to bring to bear on the questions a diversity of experience and background. We need sympathies that are not always tempered, as it were, by the establishments of both parties, and we need a Select Committee that is prepared to approach the matter independently.
I understand—this is why I wanted the Leader of the House and the Law Officers to be present in the Chamber —that the only way in which the Bill can be shaped so as to reflect the private interests is through the mechanism of a Select Committee. If the Select Committee is narrowly drawn, if it does not have within its number people of sufficient independence and of critical mind, the Committee's report to the House will not reflect the true interests of the people of Kent.
I know that I have spoken for a long time tonight— [HON. MEMBERS: "More".] Hon. Members have never said "More" to me before. I shall disappoint them.

Mr. Hickmet: My hon. Friend has not defined or explained why, in his view—we have not heard from the Minister, so we do not have a view from the Front Bench—the Bill is a hybrid Bill. As it is a public Bill which affects certain private interests in a number of counties in the south-east of England, does my hon. Friend agree that it is not suitable for committal to a Select Committee as a hybrid Bill?

Mr. Hogg: That is precisely why I urged upon Mr. Speaker and yourself, Mr. Deputy Speaker, the need for the Leader of the House to respond to the debate, or, if the Leader is unable to do so, either my right hon. and learned Friend the Attorney-General or my hon. and learned Friend the Solicitor-General.
There is no doubt that the Bill is a hybrid Bill. Later, my hon. Friend the Member for Tiverton will tell us about hybrid Bills. He is a great expert on them. The Bill touches individuals and their personal proprietorial interests. That makes it a hybrid Bill. There is no doubt that a hybrid Bill has to be treated in the way in which we propose to treat it. The point I am making is not that it is not a hybrid Bill, but rather that the procedure that we have evolved over centuries for tackling the problem of hybridity is inappropriate to a measure of this scale.

Mr. Cash: Does my hon. Friend accept that, contrary to what he said about the definition of a private Bill, there are many types of hybrid Bills? I refer him to the report of the Committee on Hybrid Bills (Procedure in Committee) of 1948. As we go on through the evening we shall be able to——

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. Interventions should be brief and relevant to the motion.

Mr. Hogg: I have never found it so difficult to persuade hon. Members to allow me to resume my place.

Mr. Gow: I wonder whether my hon. Friend is departing slightly from the motion. Would he think it wise to give to the Committee of Selection some advice about those who might comprise the nine, the 11 or the 15 Members who should serve on the Select Committee? that is surely germane to my hon. Friend's arguments.

Mr. Hogg: What my hon. Friend has said is profoundly important. We return to the premise from which we start, which is an important one. The Bill touches on people's proprietorial interests and on their employment. The only way in which the Bill can be shaped to reflect these conflicts of interest is through the mechanism of the Select


Committee. It would be a tragedy if the Select Committee were to follow too tightly the views of the establishments on either side of the House. The Select Committee is the only way of adjudicating on genuine complaints. When the members of the Selection Committee, which is chaired by my hon. Friend the Member for Shipley (Mr. Fox), come to examine the question of those who are to serve on the Select Committee, they should not take the advice of any Front Bencher. They should ask themselves these questions: first, whether the hon. Member whom they are proposing to select is independent and whether he or she has a financial——

Mr. Michael Brown: Will my hon. Friend give way?

Mr. Hogg: I shall finish this point and then I shall give way.
The Selection Committee should ask itself whether the Member in question is financially independent. Secondly, it should ask itself whether he or she has a critical mind. Thirdly, it should ask itself whether he or she can be bullied. If the Member can be bullied, he or she should not serve on the Select Committee.

Mr. Brown: This is a vital issue. It will not have escaped my hon. Friend's attention that just about every Member of this place has received during the past few weeks briefing or lobbying material from various parties that are for the Bill or against it. As for the need for independence on the part of those who serve on the Select Committee, does he agree that it will be difficult for there to be true independence, bearing in mind that those who are selected to serve on the Committee may well have been influenced already by the briefing material that has been deluged on us by various public relations companies during the past few weeks?

Mr. Hogg: This is a serious question because independence matters. By "independence", I mean Members who do not have a direct geographical interest in the constituencies that will be affected. Members such as my hon. Friend the Member for Thanet, South will no doubt be presenting evidence and speaking on behalf of their constituents. Members who have a geographical connection with the area should not serve on the Committee.
We know that there are financial, trade union, business and City interests which seek representation.

Mr. Rob Hayward: My hon. Friend has referred to geographical connections. Will he identify what he would define as a geographical area and "interest"?

Mr. Hogg: That is a fair point. Many Members think that they will be affected directly or indirectly by the Bill. For example, many Members who represent Scottish constituencies say that they will be adversely affected, and Members from the west midlands take a similar view. Virtually no hon. Member has no geographical interest. I am saying that Members who have an immediate geographical interest should be excluded. That is because the Committee of Selection should try to balance the interests of those who serve on the Select Committee. The business of the Members who represent the geographical

areas that will be affected is to make representations to the Select Committee, and it will be for the Select Committee to adjudicate on those representations.

Mr. Gow: Before my hon. Friend comes to the end of his most interesting speech, will he address himself to the key question in the motion, which is that the Committee should be composed of nine Members? Has my hon. Friend directed his formidable intellect to that number? Were there not 12 disciples and are there not 22 members of the Cabinet? Will my hon. Friend disclose to the House why we should hit upon nine Members, bearing in mind the two excellent precedents I have given?

Mr. Hogg: There were indeed 12 disciples, but one proved wanting. There are 22 members of the Cabinet, but I hesitate to say how many are wanting. I recall that when I came into this place seven years ago——

Mr. Simon Hughes: I am seeking a hint from the hon. Gentleman as to the number that might be regarded as wanting out of the 22. The hon. Gentleman obviously cannot give a conclusive answer, but he may be able to help.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: If the hon. Member answers that, he will be out of order.

Mr. Hogg: I am extremely grateful, as I did not wish to blight my prospects for ever by going through a great part of the Cabinet.
There is no great magic in nine, 11 or 15 Members, but there is a magic in having as many independent Members, incapable of being bullied, as possible serving on the Committee. As 11 is the only number on the Order Paper which is in excess of nine, I am moving in favour of 11 rather than nine.

Mr. Nicholas Winterton: Does my hon. Friend consider that his argument is strengthened by the fact that the Standing Orders Committee, of which I am a member, found it necessary, because of the tie in the Committee, with the Chairman finding it inappropriate to use his casting vote, that the matter relating to people's proprietary rights should be referred to the House? The House debated this matter at length yesterday. My hon. Friend's amendment is correct because to have nine people on a Select Committee is totally inadequate to deal with a matter of this gravity.

Mr. Hogg: I agree. I do not see how any Committee of this House can examine proprietorial interests that are affected by a Bill of this complexity. I agree with my hon. Friend the Member for Macclesfield (Mr. Winterton) that 11 is better than nine. Of the unworthy choices presented to us, I prefer 11.

Mr. David Ashby: As a lawyer. does my hon. Friend agree that 12 is an appropriate number? The petitioners should have the right of challenge of at least three members of the Committee. In that way there would be a great degree of fairness in the composition of the Committee.

Mr. Hogg: That is a most ingenious suggestion. If each petitioner had the right to challenge three members of the Committee, no Select Committee would ever be formed in this place because, at one stage or another, there would be objections to all hon. Members.

Mr. Nicholas Soames: Will my hon. Friend ignore the blandishments of my hon. Friend the Member


for Macclesfield (Mr. Winterton), who has for a long time now borne the imprint of the last lobbyist to have sat on him? The important point is not the number but the geographical content of the Committee.
My hon. Friend will be aware that much of the detail of the Bill and much of the land acquisition hangs upon the highly tenuous forecasts of the Department of Transport. The recently constructed motorway, which runs near to my constituency, is virtually at a standstill for five hours a day because of the Department's incompetence in assessing the volume of the traffic that would use it. Hon. Members who have had experience of the Department's incompetence should be included on the Committee.

Mr. Hogg: Regarding my hon. Friend the Member for Macclesfield, I have always thought that the imprint was the other way round. My hon. Friend the Member for Crawley (Mr. Soames) is right about the geographical connection. As we are dealing with traffic projections which will affect people's proprietorial interests, we need both people of an independent mind and people capable of assessing independent expert evidence.

Mr. Hickmet: When addressing his mind to the number of Members to serve on the Select Committee, what will my hon. Friend think about how those Members should be selected? The motion proposes that they should be nominated by the Committee of Selection. What does he say about his amendment that five hon. Members should be nominated by this honourable House?

Mr. Hogg: We always have this problem with the selection of Members. The Committee of Selection is the most independent body we have yet achieved, but some of us suspect that sometimes the Whips' Offices of the Labour party and the Government have had some influence on it.

Mr. Gow: It is most uncharacteristic of my hon. Friend to ignore serious points put to him. The Leader of the House is present. Is it not open to my hon. Friend to offer advice to the Committee of Selection about those who should serve on the Committee? Would my hon. Friend care to comment on two suggestions? First, that——

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. Interventions should be brief. The hon. Gentleman is almost guilty of making a speech.

Mr. Gow: My intervention will be brief. My suggestion is that my right hon. Friend the Member for Old Bexley and Sidcup (Mr. Heath) may with advantage serve on the Committee, and, since geography has been mentioned, perhaps the hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland (Mr. Wallace).

Mr. Hogg: I certainly take the first part of that suggestion seriously.

Mr. Peter Bruinvels: Why?

Mr. Hogg: Although there has been a certain levity in this debate, we are talking about a serious matter. [Interruption.] I apologise for being repetitive and I am willing to sit down, which is what I have been trying to do for the past few minutes. We are talking about major rights which can be protected only by this House. This House can form a view about the extent to which those rights are affected by the Bill only through the mechanism of the Select Committee. Therefore, it is important that the

Select Committee which is considering the petitioners' claims should be as distinguished and independent as possible. It should be chaired at the highest possible level. I can think of few people more distinguished or more independent than my right hon. Friend the Member for Old Bexley and Sidcup (Mr. Heath).

Mr. John Butterfill: My hon. Friend said that hon. Members may be disqualified from sitting on the Committee for geographical reasons. Does he agree that it is possible to conceive that any hon. Member representing a port may be considered to have a vested interest, no matter where that port is? The implications are great when one thinks of all the hon. Members who may be disqualified on the ground that they have major construction companies, steel manufacturers of manufacturers of boring equipment located in their constituency. One can give a long list of hon. Members who may be disqualified on that ground. Does my hon. Friend agree with that?

Mr. Hogg: I agree, and an enormous number of vested interests—financial, geographical and trade union—are involved in this issue. The Committee of Selection will have a difficult, perhaps impossible, task to form a Select Committee which will be seen to be independent.

Mr. Cash: Is my hon. Friend aware that it is normal with a hybrid Bill for the Select Committee to be chosen partly by the House and partly by the Committee of Selection and that the proposal in the motion departs significantly from precedent in that respect?

Mr. Hogg: Yes. There is always a necessary tension, as it were, between the view of the House as a whole, which tends to be more independent on the question of nomination, and that of the Committee of Selection. Although no Front-Bench Member would admit it, discussions can sometimes affect the composition of a Select Committee as determined by the Committee of Selection. That is why the House should have an element on the Select Committee which is nominated otherwise than through the Committee of Selection.

Mr. Lawrence: My hon. Friend is providing lion. Members with the only:guidance to be given on the motion. According to Mr. Speaker's direction, if we voted for the committal motion, we should have to vote for the series of amendments, and that would allow us to vote to have nine or 11 Select Committee Members. According to my hon. Friend's guidance, it would be extremely difficult to find nine, let alone 11, Members to sit on the Committee. That gives rise to the problem—remembering that no Members of the Liberal party have turned up tonight to move any of the amendments that stand in their names, and no Members of the SDP are here either— that if any Members of the alliance were appointed to sit on the Select Committee there would be no guarantee that they would ever turn up.

Mr. Hogg: Indeed, and I recall that a small fine may be imposed in those circumstances, but the SDP is so rich that that would not matter to the Members of that party.

Mr. Michael Brown: Is it not a fact that Members serving on Select Committees considering private Bills are required to attend and that those who fail to attend must be reported to the authorities of the House?

Mr. Hogg: Indeed, and that fact has given rise to problems in the Labour party in recent weeks.
I imagine that thousands of people will be affected by the tunnel development, and we look to my hon. Friends who represent Thanet to spell that out in detail. Many will have a direct pecuniary or personal interest in this matter. It is difficult to see how justice can be done to them through the Select Committee mechanism.

Mr. Ashby: My hon. Friend the Member for Grantham (Mr. Hogg) spoke about the geographical composition of the Committee. I have the honour to represent a constituency which includes the town of Ashby de la Zouch. Contrary to the words of the song which puts it by the sea, it is in the centre of this fair island.

Mr. Peter Bruinvels: No, it is not; Leicester is.

Mr. Ashby: It is equidistant from the sea on all sides. Perhaps it is people living in places like that that my hon. Friend the Member for Grantham (Mr. Hogg) had in mind when he talked about there being no geographical connection to the sea.

Mr. Hogg: I agree; but the point I am seeking to make is that the geographical content consists of the hon. Members and the local interests who make representations to the Select Committee. It is for the Select Committee to be as powerful, as independent, as impartial and as prestigious as possible so that its reports to the House carry real weight.

Mr. Gow: My hon. Friend said that it was of supreme importance in connection with the Bill that the membership of the Select Committee should be as prestigious as possible. Despite the criteria set by my hon. Friend, he has failed to address his mind to the key question that I put to him earlier: would it not be in accordance with my hon. Friend's criteria of great importance and of great prestige if my right hon. Friend the Member for Old Bexley and Sidcup (Mr. Heath) were to be a member of the Select Committee? My hon. Friend may think that our right hon. Friend should be the only member.

Mr. Hogg: I have a great respect for my right hon. Friend the Member for Old Bexley and Sidcup. I certainly accept that the only prospect of getting a wholly unanimous report would be if he were indeed the sole member of the Select Committee. Although he would bring a highly critical eye to bear on the Government's proposals, I do not think it would be wholly fair to the people of Kent to leave it to him.

Mr. Mark Wolfson: I am delighted to follow the speech of my hon. Friend the Member for Grantham (Mr. Hogg). During the interesting, amusing and also serious speech that he made in the short time avaiable to him he made many references to the worries of the people of Kent. It may be convenient for the House, and I hope helpful to my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Burton (Mr. Lawrence) in making up his mind about how he will vote on the motion, if I spell out some of the specific worries felt by the people of Kent.
It is now clear to the House that the concept of a fixed link between Britain and the continent is highly unpopular with a great many people in Kent. There are several reasons for that unpopularity, and among them is the

importance of our island status. That was referred to in the earlier debate. That importance has been proven many times in war and is valued for what it has given our nation over the centuries in peace. Distrust of the French by the British is historic, and that distrust is still alive and kicking in villages and towns on this side of the Straits of Dover. People feel that in some way or another the French rather than the British will gain the bulk of the benefits from the building of the Channel tunnel.
Increased traffic by road and rail, more commercial activity, more building, more population pressures in an already crowded corner——

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. The hon. Gentleman must relate what he is saying to whether the Bill should go to a Select Committee. He must not make the speech that he originally intended to make on Second Reading.

Mr. Wolfson: I fully appreciate that, Mr. Deputy Speaker, and in my opening remarks I made the point that I thought that these factors would be of benefit to the House in deciding whether the Bill should go forward to a Select Committee. These are the concerns, in specific terms, to which my hon. Friend the Member for Grantham has already referred in very general terms, and I believe that I am putting flesh on those bare bones to which he referred.

Mr. Faulds: A few moments ago the hon. Gentleman referred to the adverse reaction to France of the people in the area near to his constituency and in his constituency, but is it not the case that those of us who are opposed to the tunnel — and there are many more of us than the Government suspect—are not primarily worried because of the French challenge? Some of us are Francophiles, but we can still adopt an anti-tunnel attitude without being considered anti-French.
What we are worried about is that the French, who are much more subtle in their governmental backing of the interests of France than are the present Conservative Government in backing the interests of Britain, will steal a march on us. It is not that we are anti-French. We just think that they are rather cleverer than this Government will be in their conduct of this matter.

Mr. Wolfson: The hon. Gentleman obviously speaks for himself and puts forward his own views. On this occasion, and in this context, I am speaking only of the concerns of constituents, as I know them.
My constituents' further concerns are about increased traffic by road and rail, more commercial activity, more building and the pressure of population in this crowded corner. It is a horrific nightmare to those who expect to be directly affected by the terminal, by new roads through or close to their properties and by more, and noisy, rail traffic both on already crowded lines and on those that are little used at present and are therefore reasonable to live by.
In bringing these matters to the attention of the House, I believe that I am not only helping it to decide whether it is right that committal to a Select Committee should take place, but giving it an opportunity to consider the membership of that Committee, which was referred to by my hon. Friend the Member for Grantham.

Mr. Nicholas Winterton: My hon. Friend has mentioned a number of important aspects, but will he direct his attention to the question of employment, which certainly concerns every right hon. and hon. Member of


the House and which must influence those who are to be members of the Select Committee? Will he direct his attention to the probable ultimate increase in employment in Kent by the creation of 5,500 long-term jobs after the beginning of the next century as a direct result of the building of the Channel tunnel and to the substantial increase in the number of jobs in other regions of the country that will be provided by the increased opportunities for industry and commerce as a result of the Channel tunnel? How does he believe that this might be reflected by those who are members of the Select Committee?

Mr. Wolfson: My hon. Friend leads me very comfortably and happily into my next point, which is that although there are present concerns about the anticipated loss of jobs in the ferry industry and about our capacity to maintain a ferry fleet, which has relevance in time of war, I am quite clear that once the Channel tunnel is built and running the benefit to other parts of Britain from the increase in the number of jobs will be very real, and certainly the members of the Select Committee should reflect that concern, opportunity and interest.

Mr. Faulds: I do not follow the hon. Gentleman's argument. He seems to be saying that benefits will come to the regions after the tunnel has been opened. That is not my understanding. Is it not the case that the benefits, however small they are, will come during the construction of the tunnel? There will be no benefit to the regions after the tunnel is completed, because all the jobs related to the construction of the tunnel will have finished.

Mr. Wolfson: The hon. Gentleman misses the point completely in the second part of his intervention. I agree with him, and I am grateful to him for reminding the House, that great benefits will accrue to all regions during construction, provided that British industry is competitive enough in its tenders to win a large slice of the available contracts. Once the building is finished and the tunnel is in operation, industry in the regions will have the benefit of being able to export on an equal basis with other European countries instead of bearing the expense of the Channel sea crossing. That will be a major and continuing benefit that will be clearly reflected in increased job opportunities.

Mr. Bill Walker: Does my hon. Friend agree that the composition of that Committee must also reflect the genuine anxiety felt in the country outside Kent that we are simply changing one system of communication for another? In some areas, people do not believe that it will give us an advantage over the French, the Germans or anyone else, because communications may be better——

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. First, the hon. Gentleman should address the Chair, not turn his back on it. Secondly, if the hon. Member for Sevenoaks (Mr. Wolfson) were to pursue that matter he would be getting away from the question whether the Bill should go to a Select committee.

Mr. Walker: I apologise for not addressing you directly, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I am trying to point out that the Select committee, if it is to consider the Bill carefully and objectively, must reflect the genuine views and concerns throughout the country. If it is to be independent, its members must realise that, under the present system,

the Europeans import less from us than we import from them and that nothing will change. All that we shall do will be to improve communications, but competitiveness will remain the same.

Mr. Wolfson: I accept my hon. Friend's point that those serious matters must be reflected in the membership of the Committee.
The fears of constituents in Kent, which I have mentioned to help the House to decide how the Bill should go forward, have been increased by the apparent attempt by the Government to push through the necessary legislation with undue haste. I take the opportunity to quote from a thoughtful and erudite correspondent, who said:
The Anglo-Saxon detests being pushed around in a hurry. It's up hackles, in toes. Often the poet sees it clearest, and Kipling lived in the Weald. 'But don't try that game on the Saxon; you'll have the whole brood round your ears. They'll be at you and on you like hornets, and if you are wise you will yield.
His point about not pushing them around is good advice. In deciding about the move forward to a Select Committee, the House must take into account the fact that people do not wish to be pushed round, but wish to be certain that they will get a fair and balanced hearing, with as much time as they need on the matter——

Mr. Faulds: rose——

Mr. Wolfson: I shall give way to the hon. Gentleman in a moment.
People should have enough time to be fully heard on the matters of their concern, and that will go some way towards dealing with the problem and difficulties that I am representing to the House this evening.
I am a supporter of the concept of the tunnel, and I believe that there is great benefit to the country in it. However, the project can be carried out fairly only if the Select Committee is of the right composition.

Mr. Faulds: I am pleased that the hon. Gentleman put his arguments in such a succinct form in terms of the short verse that he quoted. I had not heard those words before. I would be most grateful to him if he would repeat them, so that I can remember them. Having once read them and rehearsed them, he might do better next time round, and it might be that much more memorable and effective. I entirely endorse what he had to say.

Mr. Wolfson: I do not have the benefit of the training of the hon. Gentleman in learning lines and then repeating them word for word. I was merely quoting what a constituent had written to me.
I should like to turn now to other concerns that again bear on the procedural future of the Bill. A great deal of work has been carried out by Eurotunnel, the group, carrying out the project, in endeavouring to develop effective consultation in Kent. I think that it is an important point for the House to bear in mind that the promoters of the project, who have come in for a good deal of criticism in previous debates on the matter, are taking great trouble to involve, and to be available to, those who have concerns about the development that will be caused in Kent. I think that that is an important point to take into account.

Mr. Butterfill: As we are dealing with the composition of the Committee and as my hon. Friend has graphically illustrated the emotions that the Bill has built up in Kent


and the strong views and interests that exist in Kent regarding the Bill, may I ask whether he is suggesting that this would automatically disqualify from membership of the Committee any Kentish man or man of Kent who was an hon. Member of the House? If so, would that not disqualify automatically and rather sadly our right hon. Friend the Member for Old Bexley and Sidcup (Mr. Heath), as was so eloquently suggested by my hon. Friend the Member for Eastbourne (Mr. Gow)?

Mr. Wolfson: No. I remind my hon. Friend that it is not I who was suggesting specific qualifications for members of the Committee, and certainly not I who suggested that geographical qualifications should work against their selection. In my view, to achieve a balanced Committee, there has to be representation from the areas most concerned. I do not think that any of us in the House would be here if we were not prepared on occasion to speak for local interests. That is part of the job, just as it is part of the job to take a national view on things. That is why from my own viewpoint I support the Channel tunnel as a project, because I believe that it will be of value to the nation in the future. However, I also see it as part of my job to air the concern of my constituents about the way in which it may affect them exactly.
I deal now with another area where any constituents will be directly affected and where they may well wish to petition the Committee about the problems that they are likely to face. They are very concerned about the effect that increased rail traffic will have on the commuter services that they currently enjoy.

Mr. Gale: Enjoy?

Mr. Wolfson: My hon. Friend the Member for Thanet, North (Mr. Gale) makes a good point. The benefits that they have now, such as they are, may be curtailed by increased rail traffic and their current rights therefore adversely affected. So the matter is relevant to this debate.
Additional trains will run on the line through Sevenoaks to Charing Cross. That will be the main passenger link between the coast and London. There will also be increased freight traffic on the line running through Maidstone, Otford and Swanley. There is relatively lower use of that line now. The line running from Tonbridge to Redhill will also have increased freight usage.
All that will have an effect on my constituents and their concern at how their livelihoods, the peace and quiet that they enjoy, the opportunity that they have to travel up and down to town in British Rail——

Mr. Butterfill: Cattle trucks.

Mr. Wolfson: I thank my hon. Friend. Yes, in British Rail cattle trucks. I call them bone shakers. They are often dirty and are not in good condition. Nevertheless, even the low level of service that exists in some cases now could be further curtailed. Again they may wish to petition Parliament on those issues. Therefore, the membership of the Select Committee must include individuals who are in a position to take an enlightened and interested view, based on their own knowledge and background.
I am grateful to have had the opportunity to bring some of these points to the attention of the House before it makes its decision about the committal of the Bill.

Mr. Simon Hughes: The hon. and learned Member for Burton (Mr. Lawrence) criticised the alliance earlier for not being here to move amendments which it had tabled. If he looked at the selection list, he would realise that there are four groupings of amendments and that none of the amendments tabled by my hon. Friends and myself is in this grouping. Unlike other parties, we shall move the amendments that we have tabled and we hope that they will be voted on.
None the less, it is important that our view should be put on the other amendments that are not in our names. In relation to the amendments which we are discussing at the moment, which I understand are to be moved, although not by a member of the Labour party which originally tabled them, I endorse the view that on a matter of such importance the Select Committee procedure should allow the maximum number of participants. Therefore, I commend the amendment which suggests that there should be 11 Members on the Select Committee.
Amendment (b), which proposes that five of the 11 should be nominated by the House and six by the relevant Committee, is the most democratic way of ensuring that the membership of the Select Committee is not carved up by the usual channels. It is important that hon. Members who have an interest, and who respect and understand the national importance of the matter, should have a chance to participate in the Select Committee.
It will be difficult to find any number of hon. Members, be it nine or 11, who do not have an interest and who are not in some way affected by the Bill. That is accepted by hon. Members on both sides of the House. But, because of the controversial nature of the Bill, and particularly because of the importance of the Bill to the people of Kent, who will be most substantially affected, they will be better served by the larger rather than the smaller number of Members, who will represent a wider variety of views and will hopefully, therefore, be better able to represent their interests and respond to the concerns put forward by the petitioners.
I hope that when the time comes the House will agree to both the amendments that have been selected and debated with the first motion. That will allow the procedures of this place to be seen in a good light and, perhaps, give somewhat more encouragement to the people of Kent than the performance that they would have witnessed had they been here for the two hours until now, when they would have heard very little on the important substantive issues and a considerable amount that would not have given them any great enthusiasm or encouragement to believe that their views would be represented.
I hope that, if we are to be here for a long time through the night, more than four or five of the 16 Members elected to serve Kent constituencies will attend and participate in the debate. If the matter is of importance to the people of Kent, their representatives should be here to put forward their views.

Sir John Farr: I wish to raise a couple of points about the desirability or otherwise of keeping members of the Select Committee informed as and when they deliberate on the Bill.


One matter that many of us have had drawn to our attention is that it is thought widely in this country that if we are to have a tunnel — and many of us are not convinced that it is necessary—it should be of the right sort. When the Select Committee considers the representations made to it, one of the overriding factors that it should bear in mind is whether the right sort of tunnel has been chosen by the Government.
There is a view that if a tunnel is considered necessary, it would be wrong to choose one that would be hostage to the railway system. The original idea, when we first considered a tunnel, was for a combined road and rail link, and I believe that was right. I have listened to all the arguments today, but no one has deployed an argument in any convincing detail why we abandoned the original road-rail link idea and are now stuck with only a rail link.
I am a great believer in the railway system, and while we have an onward looking rail authority the project may be successful. However, it places us very much in the hands of the railway unions, and we cannot but continually bear in mind the militant attitude of some of them. For example, millions of pounds worth of new rolling stock cannot be brought into use on the London-midlands line because of lack of co-operation from the unions. Therefore, the first matter that the Select Committee should consider is whether we have chosen the right sort of tunnel. I think it is the wrong sort.
Another view that will no doubt be put to the Committee by many of the objectors—and it is as well that it should be mentioned today—is whether we need a tunnel at all. Earlier in our debates there were speeches both in favour and against——

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. The hon. Gentleman is debating the principle. He must relate his remarks to whether the Bill should be committed to a Select Committee.

Sir John Farr: I understand your point, Mr. Deputy Speaker, but I was attempting to stress the sort of matters that should be drawn to the attention of the Select Committee. I was guided by Mr. Speaker who earlier said that the debate could be fairly wide-ranging. I was——

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. The hon. Gentleman must not put words into Mr. Speaker's mouth. I was present when Mr. Speaker referred to those hon. Members who had been here all day and expressed his anxiety that they should have an opportunity to speak. However, he did not say that the debate would be wide-ranging. We are discussing petitioning and whether to refer the Bill to a Select Committee. The hon. Gentleman must relate his remarks to the motion before the House.

Sir John Farr: I will certainly do that.
We have heard lengthy speeches about the number of members for the Select Committee. If I so wish, I can deploy my arguments at considerable length and stay within the bounds of order. The numbers of members proposed for the Select Committee is in no way adequate, to deal with the many problems that are likely to arise.
My hon. Friend the Member for Grantham (Mr. Hogg) referred to the composition of the Select Committee and suggested that it should consist of one person only. I believe that there should be a wide-ranging Committee with many members.

Mr. Faulds: Should the hon. Gentleman not examine with more care that very rational and sensible suggestion

that the Committee should consist of one person and that that one person should be the right hon. Member for Old Bexley and Sidcup (Mr. Heath)? With his long experience of Parliament, the hon. Member for Harborough (Sir J. Farr) must realise that integrity is not a constant element in every hon. Member. What is required is an hon. Member who, come hell or high water, friend or foe., after proper examination of the matter, will stick to his view with great resolution. There is much to be said for a man with such integrity examining an impossibly complex problem which has not, unfortunately, been subject to the proper examination of a public inquiry.

Sir John Farr: I accept the hon. Gentleman's point, but that would not be very successful. I do not believe that my right hon. Friend the Member for Old Bexley and Sidcup (Mr. Heath) would be at all acquiescent to some of the representations that would be made to him. For instance, he would not be prepared to accept the fact that many thousands of jobs are at risk on our ferries and at Dover, Folkestone and the other ports. He would not be prepared to consider the fact that the jobs which are to be provided will be terminal jobs. There is no long-term future in these jobs. A few thousand people will be employed for a short period—only a few years—to build the tunnel. Those would be terminal jobs, like the terminal jobs of those who built the pyramids on the Nile. There is no future in those jobs. That is why my right hon. Friend the Member for Old Bexley and Sidcup would not be a trustworthy person to have on the Select Committee.

Mr. Michael Brown: Of course, my hon. Friend the Member for Harborough (Sir John Farr) will accept that my right hon. Friend the Member for Old Bexley and Sidcup (Mr. Heath) is a man of great integrity. With regard to my right hon. Friend being the sole member of the Select Committee, my hon. Friend is correct to cast doubt on whether that is a wise course of action.
Does my hon. Friend recall that in 1972, when my right hon. Friend the Member for Old Bexley and Sidcup as Prime Minister was petitioned by the people who now have the misfortune to live in the county of Humberside that they should remain in the old counties of the East Riding of Yorkshire and of Lindsay, he refused to listen to them? Does my hon. Friend agree that one of the important credentials for serving on a Committee of this kind is that one should not have a fixed or single-minded view? On such a Select Committee one should have a completely open mind. One should listen to the evidence from the promoters, on the one hand, and from the petitioners, on the other. One should not have a fixed view and not be open to persuasion on the basis of the evidence that is laid before the Committee.

Sir John Farr: I am grateful for my hon. Friend's remarks. Of course, they bear more than an element of truth. However, I think that my hon. Friend was trying, as I was, to say that we are not really satisfied with the number proposed for the composition of the Select Committee, to which we are considering referral of the Bill.
The remark by my hon. Friend the Member for Eastbourne (Mr. Gow) that my right hon. Friend the Member for Old Bexley and Sidcup should be the only member of the Committee was probably made in a jocular frame of mind. But, to be more serious, no one person,


no six, seven or 17 persons, however knowledgeable, could absorb all the different facets which they will confront.
For instance, I know that teams of people from the National Farmers Union are waiting to find out the composition of the Select Committee to prepare submissions to them on the risk of rabies, which is a real possibility. Rabies is now at the Channel ports and there is a real possibility that it could somehow be transmitted on the rail link between the two shores. The NFU wants reassurances. I would take the word of my right hon. Friend on many things, but I would not accept any reassurance from him on rabies from Europe. He would give them a white sheet when, in fact, there are considerable risks.
It is important to have on the Select Committee experts on defence and shipping. We have on both sides of the House, thank goodness, some knowledgeable people who can speak for shipping, particularly naval shipping. They should be on the Select Committee and they should decide. Representatives from Sealink and the Dover Harbour Board came to the Select Committee on Statutory Instruments the other day. Experts must be on the Select Committee to analyse what such people will say about threats to the livelihoods of many tens of thousands of people in the Dover district and to our seafaring capacity and capability at the Channel ports and elsewhere. The evidence must be heard and analysed by the many experts on both sides of the House. The sort of evidence that we heard was that the fixed link would be damaging to employment, would lead to a rapid rundown of our ferry fleets, and would mean that we would never again have the naval capability to mount another Falklands expedition.

Mr. Spencer Batiste: My hon. Friend touches on an important point in the skills available to the Select Committee. Will the Select Committee have access to independent advice in the same way as other Select Committees? He might consider what areas of advice should be available to such a Select Committee? In looking at the numbers that might be appropriate for the Select Committee, should not he and perhaps others speaking on this important constitutional matter therefore consider each of the 650 Members of the House to ascertain the ideal combination for deliberating on these important matters?

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Harold Walker): Order. Those will be matters for the Committee of Selection. We are discussing numbers, not qualities.

Mr. Batiste: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. Does it not say in the amendment we are now discussing that there is a possibility that some hon. Members should be nominated by the House? Is it not in order on this amendment, therefore, to consider who should be appointed by the House?

Sir John Farr: I was saying——

Mr. Faulds: rose——

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. Is the hon. Gentleman making an intervention?

Mr. Faulds: Yes.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Is the hon. Member for Harborough (Sir J. Farr) giving way?

Sir John Farr: Yes.

Mr. Faulds: I am most grateful to you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, for ensuring my ability to intervene. The hon. Gentleman's reference to rabies disturbs me. He has set me thinking that there is a real danger here, because if the smooth running rail line is introduced——

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. We are considering the numbers of those who will possibly comprise the Committee, not rabies. Sir John Farr.

Mr. Faulds: rose——

Mr. Michael Brown: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. Would you rule on the point made by my hon. Friend the Member for Elmet (Mr. Batiste), because it is fairly crucial? We are debating paragraph 1 with amendments (a) and (b). As you will see, I am a signatory to those amendments. I should like guidance, Mr. Deputy Speaker. Surely we must be able to refer to the question of which hon. Members might be selected from the House. The amendments to which I am a signatory ask us to debate whether some members of the Committee should be nominated by the House and not selected by the Committee of Selection.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: I do not understand the hon. Gentleman's point. It will be in order for the House to discuss what should be borne in mind in the event of the amendment being carried and the House called upon to make the nominations.

Sir John Farr: I was dealing with the composition of the Select Committee. I said that it would be helpful, when members are chosen in the usual way, to have experts on agriculture, animal health, defence and shipping. We should also have an expert on the Select Committee to deal with the possibility of sabotage.

Mr. Faulds: The hon. Gentleman has again referred to specialists being put on the Committee who have knowledge of agriculture and animal health. I am disturbed by the reference to animal health. Unless there is an hon. Member on the Committee Who is knowledgeable about the dangers of the ravaging disease, rabies, we may find that within a few months of the opening of the tunnel the appalling disease is rampant in Britain. I am profoundly disturbed about the introduction of the disease through the tunnel. When a smuggled pet is on a smooth running railway line, the little thing is likely to sleep all the way. However—this is a guarantee to prevent rabies entering Britain — if that little pet is smuggled on board an aircraft the variation in pressure——

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. The hon. Gentleman is not only going wide of the debate but making a long speech in what I assumed was an intervention.

Mr. Faulds: rose——

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. The hon. Gentleman has gone far enough for the moment.

Sir John Farr: As I said, when the Select Committee is appointed it should take on board the possibility of sabotage. It is absolutely essential that we should have on


the Committee Members, preferably from both sides of the House who are familiar with anti-sabotage techniques. Hon. Members with such expertise do exist.
I hope that the Select Committee will cast its mind to matters such as that when it is set up. For those reasons, I do not think that the Select Committee should be as small as is envisaged, and we shall come to the ridiculously low quorum of three later in the debate. However, I certainly think that the Committee should be considerably larger than is proposed.

Sir John Biggs-Davison: The whole tenor of the debate has been to insist that there must be special qualifications and disqualifications as to area and interest. My hon. Friend is now saying that the Committee should be larger. Throughout the debate I have been coming to the conclusion that hardly any hon. Member, except my right hon. Friend the Member for Old Bexley and Sidcup (Mr. Heath), would be qualified. Therefore, I ask my hon. Friend to reconsider what he is saying. To ask for an increase is not in order because of the qualifications and disqualifications that have been mentioned.

Sir John Farr: I am grateful to my hon. Friend. My right hon. Friend the Member for Old Bexley and Sidcup has all the abilities to which he referred. However, I cannot consider him as having the ability to absorb all the different arguments and to come up with a single fair conclusion alone. If he were in the job alone, the masses of conflicting evidence that he would have to sift would take until next year or the year after. The main objective in the life of my right hon. Friends on the Front Bench is to get the tunnel through as quickly as possible.

Mr. Bill Walker: Earlier, it was suggested that as well as my right hon. Friend the Member for Old Bexley and Sidcup (Mr. Heath), an hon. Member who would be suitable for the Committee would be the hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland (Mr. Wallace). That would bring in another view that might be helpful.

Sir John Farr: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for his suggestion.

Mr. Gary Waller: If my right hon. Friend the Member for Old Bexley and Sidcup (Mr. Heath) were appointed to be in sole charge of the Committee, might there not be a real risk that the tunnel would start from Dover, take a U-turn in mid-Channel, and return to Folkestone?

Sir John Farr: I am sure that as my hon. Friend has suggested that will be a real risk if we have a one-man Committee. We shall have to bear that in mind.
It is also important to have on the Committee specialists from both sides of the House who can analyse our trading position and the benefits and advantages of the tunnel to our trade. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Transport, in his good speech this afternoon, said that we shall have tremendous opportunities as a result of building this tunnel. For example, our exporters would be able to move their goods from Manchester to Berne, almost overnight. I well recall that such arguments were adduced when we first joined the Common Market. My right hon. Friend the Member for Old Bexley and Sidcup and many others said that fantastic opportunities were waiting to be seized by our exporters.
What has happened since we joined? We were then net exporters to the EEC. Now we are big importers of its manufactured goods. Recently, we have become major net importers from the rest of the world. All that has happened since we joined the Community. Therefore, although my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State has great knowledge and the facilities of the Department to call upon, I would not necessarily accept his analysis that the creation of the tunnel will benefit our exporters. I do not think it will.

Mrs. Elaine Kellett-Bowman: My hon. Friend is adducing unfavourable figures that cannot conceivably be blamed on the Channel tunnel, which does not yet exist.

Sir John Farr: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for her intervention. I am not saying that a tunnel will necessarily make the situation worse, although the leather, shoe and boot manufacturers in Northamptonshire have grave difficulties because of imports from the Community. Therefore, it will be important to have on the Select Committee several persons who are well informed on commercial, trading and business matters so that they can make an analysis of whether, as my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State said, the tunnel will be of advantage to our manufacturers.

Mr. Batiste: Would my hon. Friend concede that among the candidates for the Committee should be the hon. Member for Warley, East (Mr. Faulds) who has two remarkable qualifications? First, he is the only Labour Back Bencher who has sat through the debate sc far. Secondly, he is experienced in playing many different roles and therefore has many of the ranges of expertise that will be required.

Mr. Faulds: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman. He is an experienced parliamentarian and follows the correct procedure, that when an hon. Member is referred to he should have the right to reply.
I am not eager to lose my summer holidays this year, but I am so profoundly opposed to this lunatic enterprise that I might even consider an invitation to serve on the Select Committee. In examining the arguments that would be put to such a Committee, I would be of enormous value. Few Members of the House with the limited interests that most of them represent, have such a wide-ranging knowledge of all the riches and vicissitudes of life as the hon. Member for Warley, East.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order.

Mr. Faulds: I was extolling my many virtues. My virtues are so many that I could speak for another 20 or 25 minutes, but I must have some regard for you, Mr. Deputy Speaker.
Were my expertise on a range of issues to be required — and we would need as members of the Committee those with reasoned arguments to oppose the introduction of this little tunnelling enterprise—I would be somewhat tempted to accept the invitation. I would do that, of course, only with the agreement of most hon. Members; but, knowing how very popular I am with hon. Members on both sides of the House——

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. Interventions must be brief.

Sir John Farr: Mr. Deputy Speaker, I was——

Mr. Faulds: I was just going to conclude my intervention, Mr. Deputy Speaker. Knowing as I do my popularity with all parties and with hon. Members on both sides of the House, I might well make it to the Select Committee. Dear God, I dread the thought, but I might well make it.

Sir John Farr: I was saying that it would be important to have on the Select Committee specialists in trade. I gave an instance of the way in which the footwear trade and certainly the knitting and hosiery trades in Leicester have been hit by exports from the continent. Many hosiery and knitwear goods come in from Portugal and Italy, and Portuguese goods pose a real problem in that respect. The domestic industries of Leicester and Northampton have been ravaged by cheap imports from Portugal, and from Italy to a certain extent. All I am saying, in the absence of my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Transport, who made the point this afternoon, is that it is not fair to say that there will be a one-way advantage to our manufacturers. The opposite will apply. Continental manufacturers will be able to get their goods to our shops much more quickly, or that much more quickly than they can now.
It will also be important to have on the Select Committee at least two financial specialists—preferably the chairmen of the relevant financial committees from both sides of the House. I say that because the Conservative party and the Prime Minister recently pledged that no public money wll be used in the project.
I would want those financial specialists to cast their cool and analytical minds over the balance of payments and how the bill will be picked up. I gather that it will be on a fifty-fifty basis—50 per cent. of the project backed by French banks and 50 per cent. by British banks. As I understand it, the French banks are natonalised anyhow, which means that 50 per cent. of the cost of the project is certainly from public money.
I would want the financial experts, together with a specialist on transport, to consider the massive extra costs to British Rail's infrastructure— millions of pounds— which have been referred to in earlier debates. That is public money. When my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State was questioned about that this afternoon, he said, rather jocularly, that possibly a public loan or Government subsidy could be extended by hundreds of millions of pounds. Many hon. Members would not find that acceptable. We think that we have lent the railways too much already, and we would like a better show of good faith by the railways before casting more good money after bad.

Mr. Gerrard Neale: Does my hon. Friend accept that one of the great advantages of such investment is that the trains which will be able to run on the improved tracks down to and through the Channel tunnel would give British Rail, as an operator, access to virtually all the cities of Europe, especially with its freight, and give our exporters a tremendous advantage by being able to get through the tunnel in one journey? Therefore, that investment would be highly worth while.

Sir John Farr: I accept the optimistic analysis that my hon. Friend has made, but I completely disagree with him. The reason I disagree is that a few years ago members of the Council of Europe Transport Committee went to Paris and considered matters from the point of view of the

French. I am convinced that if the British Government had had more financial acumen, they could have got the French Government to pay for the whole damned tunnel. They showed us a wonderful map of the Europe that was to be in the future. The missing link was a railway under the Channel tunnel. The French said that they were anxious to have the rail link built. They are sitting in the middle of a spider's web, as it were, with France and Paris at the centre of Europe.

Mr. William Powell: I know that my hon. Friend will draw some comfort from the fact that the French Parliament is considering a measure which will involve the denationalisation of French banks. That may assist him in——

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. I do not see any relationship between public ownership of French banks and the matter before the House.

Sir John Farr: Years ago, we used to consider that Britain was at the centre of things. We are not even at the centre of the Commonwealth now, although I suppose we are still at the centre of the English-speaking world. When the Channel link is built, with a rail system only, we shall be on the fringes of a European transport pattern designed for traffic between the centre of Europe and the periphery, of which we will be part. That will be a detrimental step. We have avoided it for many generations, and we should avoid it in future.

Mr. Neale: Perhaps the Select Committee will consider evidence that the French could have paid for the tunnel. Does my hon. Friend accept, and perhaps reject, that if the French paid for the tunnel, they would have used French labour and machinery? The development would have benefited the French economy, and Britain would not have received any of the gains that are offered under the present suggestion.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. I do not see that that has much relevance to the specific issue before us. I hope that we can return to the issue before the House.

Sir John Farr: I agree with what my hon. Friend has said. He made the point that it is important to have on the Select Committee people who understand the advantages to the French of building the tunnel. It is proper that experts on finance, transport and trade matters should tell hon. Members why a few years ago the French said that they would be prepared to fund the full cost of the tunnel if they were given the chance to do so.
It is important that we should have——

Mr. Batiste: Does my hon. Friend accept that there should be an expert on the Select Committee who understands geographical implications? Many of the important reservations which colleagues have about the Bill are based on a belief that the tunnel is being built in the wrong place. If someone understood the importance of linking the midlands and the east coast of Britain with the industrial heartland of Europe rather than the south-east with the north of France, some important expertise and knowledge might be brought to bear on the consideration of the Bill.

Sir John Farr: I am grateful to my hon. Friend, I think that he has reinforced my argument that the Select Committee should not be as is suggested in the motion. The proposed number of members is far too few. The


Committee should be full of experts. I respectfully suggest that the Bill should go before a Select Committee of the whole House.

1 am

Mr. David Harris: I regret that I have to disagree completely with the remarks of my hon. Friend the Member for Harborough (Sir J. Fan). I disagree entirely with his proposition that the proposed size of the Select Committee is too small. I believe that the House is suffering from too many Committees, both Standing and Select. I speak as a Member who is currently serving on a Standing Committee and a Select Committee.
I shall recount my experience of this very day. I was the member of a Select Committee that was summoned to meet at 10.30 am, which I was unable to attend because I had to be present for a Standing Committee. The Whips kindly let me leave that Committee for a whole quarter of an hour during the morning so that I could attend the Select Committee. I then had to return to the Standing Committee. That Standing Committee met again this evening. I am casting no aspersions on the great and the good in the House, but I cannot help noticing that many of us who have the honour to be members of various Committees fall into the category, like myself, of rather humble and junior Back Benches, who perhaps form, if you will excuse the expression, Mr. Deputy Speaker, the poor bloody infantry of this place.
Much mention has been made of my right hon. Friend the Member for Old Bexley and Sidcup (Mr. Heath)——

Mr. Bill Walker: My right hon. Friend does not serve on any Committees.

Mr. Harris: Indeed. That is the point that I wish to make. There are many others who do not serve on any Committees. One of my senior right hon. Friends returned fairly recently to the Back Benches. To his amazement, he received a small white card, with which many of us are extremely familiar, which meant that the Selection Committee had summoned him to serve on a Committee. My right hon. Friend apparently asked his secretary to explain what the card was all about. Needless to say, he did not turn up to serve on the Committee as summoned.
There is difficulty in manning our Select Committees and Standing Committees and it is therefore quite wrong for several of my right hon. and hon. Friends to propose that the Select Committee that will consider the serious matter that is before us should have its membership increased from nine members to 11. Dare I suggest it, but I have the nasty feeling at the back of my mind that those of my hon. Friends who have advanced the proposition have been hijacked in some way by the official Opposition, whose amendment it is.

Mr. Michael Brown: I hope that my hon. Friend is not suggesting that those of us who have signed the amendments that are in the name of the Leader of the Opposition have done so for any reason other than the fact that we are wholly in agreement with them. I sign nothing in the House, be it an early-day motion or an amendment, whomsoever has tabled it, unless I agree with the proposal. I hardly look at the names of those who support it. I look solely at the amendment, and if it commends itself to me I sign it purely on that basis, and on nothing more or less than that. I ask my hon. Friend to withdraw his slur upon those of us who added our signatures to the amendments solely because we agreed with them.

Mr. Harris: My hon. Friend the Member for Brigg and Cleethorpes (Mr. Brown) is right to rebuke me and I withdraw my remark. I did not seek to cast a slur on his intentions or those of my hon. Friends who signed the amendment.

Mrs. Kellett-Bowman: rose——

Mr. Harris: I have been challenged on this point and I wish to withdraw in the most gracious way possible.
I do not wish to cast a slur on the intentions of my hon. Friend the Member for Grantham (Mr. Hogg). No one who heard his speech would accuse him of being hijacked. I was ill advised when I used that word. I should have used the words "taken over". As I look at the crowded Opposition Benches, I cannot help noticing that none of the original signatories of the amendment has had the courtesy to be here to debate it. By their absence they are snubbing the House and not treating their amendment with the seriousness it deserves. I see a slight stirring from the temporary watchkeeper behind the Opposition Dispatch Box. I am willing to give way to the hon. Member for Blaydon (Mr. McWilliam) if he wishes to challenge me on that point.

Mrs. Kellett-Bowman: My hon. Friend has already made my point, which is that it is exceedingly fortunate that my hon. Friends had the foresight to realise that the Labour party might well renege on its duties and fail to be present. Therefore, my hon. Friends were able to take over the burden from them.

Mr. Harris: I intended to make that point. Perhaps that reflects the fact that my hon. Friend and myself spent five years together, sitting next to each other in the European Parliament. Perhaps that has resulted in a certain symmetry of thought.
I resist this amendment.

Mr. Batiste: My hon. Friend's objection to this amendment is that there are not enough Back Benchers to staff the Committee. He drew attention to the fact that a number of Privy Councillors do not sit on any Committees. If we follow the logic of his argument, one could suggest that, for this uniquely important Bill, there should be a Select Committee composed entirely of Privy Councillors who are not currently engaged on Government business.

Mr. Harris: That is rather a nice thought. I wonder whether we would have difficulty in meeting the quorum requirement. We might have to apply penalties.
Without casting aspersions I shall draw on my experience today. I was on a Standing Committee during the evening and a vote was called at precisely 5.15 pm. Two of my colleagues—one is a right hon. Member—happen to be members of the executive of the 1922 Committee and they disappeared from the Standing Committee. The Standing Committee on which I have the privilege and pleasure to serve — for tedious meeting after tedious meeting—is on the Salmon Bill. Three members of the Committee are also executive members of the 1922 Committee, including none other than the chairman of the 1922 Committee.
No one in living memory can recall the last occasion on which the chairman of the 1922 Committee sat on a Standing Committee. I am not sure about Select Committees.

Mr. Bill Walker: Do not my hon. Friend's observations show that if the issue is considered to be sufficiently serious, as obviously the Salmon Bill is, the same attitude will prevail for the Channel Tunnel Bill?

Mr. Harris: Yes, that is the case, provided the members are volunteers, not pressed men. Amendment (b) suggests that five of the members of the proposed Select Committee should be nominated by the House. That is the awful dilemma of the Select Committee.
Let us suppose that some hon. Members are selected by the House to serve on the Select Committee against their wishes, just as I in my humble position have been put on the Salmon Bill Committee. I do not wish to serve on it; I was put on it. My hon. Friend the Member for Tayside, North (Mr. Walker) was also put on it.

Mr. Walker: I wanted to serve on the Committee.

Mr. Harris: My hon. Friend wanted to serve on the Committee. I would willingly swap places with him. The great and the good of the House—the people whose names have been bandied about frivolously — may be nominated to serve on the Select Committee, but they may not attend to their duties as lesser mortals, like me, must do because we live in fear and trembling of the Whips. I have not noticed that the great and the good pay much regard to the Whips. I see a Whip stirring. I am sure that he will not intervene, which would be against all our conventions, so I shall continue.
This evening two of my hon. Friends left the Committee to attend the executive meeting of the 1922 Committee and the Whip had to scurry down the Corridor to retrieve them. They returned willingly. That underlines the dangers that we face if the Select Committee is of such a size that it is not composed of volunteers who passionately want to serve on it and who will see it through from beginning to end.
As my hon. Friend the Member for Grantham said, it is important to have hon. Members on the Select Committee who are independent and, above all, who want to serve on it.

Mr. Lawrence: Is it not a fact that hon. Members who are most passionate to sit on the Select Committee are most likely to have an interest which will bias their view, so they should be the least qualified to sit on it? If that is so, and bearing in mind all the other disqualifications mentioned, is not the substance of the debate whether we should have a Select Committee considering the matter because we cannot find anyone to sit on it?

Mr. Harris: That is another dilemma. I must tread carefully because the last thing I want to do is to appear to volunteer to serve on the Select Committee. I am completely disinterested, but I do not want to tempt fate.

Mr. Forth: In developing his possible role in this matter, does my hon. Friend agree that his almost unique experience of the European Parliament before he came to the House would qualify him to serve on the Select Committee because he could give it views from both sides of the Channel which few hon. Members could do?

Mr. Harris: My hon. Friend is better qualified than I to serve, for he, too, was a Member of the European Parliament, though he displayed a fervour for all things European, his aim being to build bridges with Europe, let alone tunnels, so I bow to any claim he may make to be a member of the Select Committee.

Mr. Roger King: I rule out my ability to serve on the Select Committee because I have a wife and family. Is my hon. Friend aware that those who attend Committees diligently are likely to be well rewarded? For example, we read in The Guardian recently of how Mr. Matthew Parris attended 90 Committee meetings in the Session 1984–85, and he seems to have been well rewarded.

Mr. Harris: I understand that our former colleague has not yet been rewarded by the job that he intends to take up having left this place.
Considering the activities of the Select Committee which considered the Okehampton bypass, one wonders whether this is the best type of body to consider issues of this type. That was not a happy Select Committee for those of us who represent south-west constituencies, particularly Cornish and Devonshire hon. Members who desperately wanted that bypass to be built.
While I do not question the integrity of the Members who served on that Select Committee, I fear that—in the House or in the Selection Committee—we shall fail to find nine, let alone 11, impartial Members with the necessary dedication and time to examine the issue of the tunnel.
I hope, therefore, that the House will reject the amendment which has been tabled by some hon. Members, though I will not say tabled in an unholy alliance between some of my hon. Friends and Opposition Members because I have already been rebuked for making that comment.

Mrs. Edwina Currie: I have now sat through nearly nine and a half hours of debate on the Bill and I am grateful for this opportunity to take part in it and support the motion that the Bill go to a Select Committee. Most of us feel that the tunnel would be a great advantage to this nation, and we would be glad to see it. I am pleased that the Bill is to go to a Select Committee, because that will mean that an opportunity will be given for evidence to be taken and for papers to be called for. One hopes that that will enable a thorough discussion to take place on the merits and demerits of the tunnel.
The Channel tunnel is probably one of the most exciting developments ever to take place in the United Kingdom. It will end the isolation of this offshore nation and make us firmly part of Europe, where we belong. It will take us into the 21st century and profoundly affect the whole of Britain, not just the south-east, but the part of the country that I represent as well.
I should like to join hon. Members in all parts of the House who have made representations about who should serve on the Select Committee on the Bill. I hope that I can exclude myself by saying that it is my wish to serve on Committees considering other aspects of legislation that will come before the House in the near future. Therefore, I hope that I shall already be occupied.
I hope that the nine members of the Committee, or whatever number of members the House decides upon, will be truly representative of opinion in the House. That means that they should represent those in favour in all parts of the House, as well as those who are against. It should include hon. Members, not just from the south-east, and not just from London, who have tended to speak so forcefully on behalf of their constituents during this


debate, but those from the midlands and the north, because it is in many of those constituencies that we will see a number of the benefits, both in the short term and in the long term.
My constituents in Derby—not just those who work for British Rail Engineering Limited but many of those who work for companies involved in construction and for many of the companies which are involved in subcontracting to engineering firms all over the country —are jubilant and will he more than pleased when they win their share of the substantial sum of money that will be available to be spent on new rolling stock, signalling, track equipment and all the other things required. Orders for those things will soon be placed as a result of the Bill and the Select Committee report on it.
Membership of the Select Committee will no doubt include hon. Members of the Opposition, such as the hon. Meinber for Vauxhall (Mr. Holland) who spoke so for6efully in the debate. It is a great pity that those hon. Members who will find that substantial sums of money will be spent directly in their own constituencies—for example, £60 million will be spent on Waterloo station —have done nothing but whinge about it. If the Select Committee were to represent that as a result of this legislation £60 million should be spent in the heart of Derby, I would be thrilled to bits about it and the last thing that I would do would be to carp about it.
It seems that some Opposition Members prefer to have rundown, derelict sites in their areas, and poverty and misery and a lack of hope, instead of the growth, which the hon. Member for Vauxhall so aptly described, that will come about with new hotels and restaurants and all the other services that will deal with travellers. Perhaps if the rates base of an area like Lambeth were to be widened by the development of such facilities to take the place of the dereliction that exists there, the council would not have to charge such high rates. That includes the rates of those hon. Members who have flats in that part of the city. I suspect that some hon. Members whose constituencies are affected in this way and who might therefore be requested to serve on the Select Committee and be among the nine hon. Members whose names are put forward by the Committee of Selection, actually prefer to see that kind of misery. If their areas become gentrified in the way that I have suggested, some Opposition Members will lose their seats.
Under hon. Members who will be asked to serve will, no doubt, be hon. Members who have spoken so ably on the Second Reading, such as my hon. Friend the Member for Thanet, South (Mr. Aitken). Perhaps the Select Committee, while listening carefully to the arguments put forward by people such as my hon. Friend the Member for Thanet, South, would have more sympathy if he were simply to put the parochial case and say that this will cause distress and disturbance to his constituents, rather than claim to be speaking for the whole nation and by so doing casting slurs on those who wish to promote the Bill and who see themselves as doing that in the interests of the whole nation.
This will be the biggest civil engineering project ever seen in Europe. In the debate on procedure on 3 June my hon. Friend the Member for Thanet, South called it a
monster to the inhabitants of the small coastal towns and villages where they will hurt most.—[Official Report, 3 June 1986; Vol. 98, c. 847.]

Of course, he is right in that, and I hope that the Select Committee, in taking evidence and in listening to the represenations made to it, will take that into account, because some of my hon. Friend's constituents and some of the constituents of other hon. Members who have spoken in the debate will be living for about five years on the biggest building site in Europe. Those of us who recognise the benefits will, I hope, nevertheless recognise that those private interests are being affected. There will be an obligation on all those concerned — the developers, the Government and the promoters of the Bill —to ensure that they operate at all times with respect for those who are living nearby. There is a considerable obligation on all concerned to listen to the objections and to try to accommodate them.
I hope that when the Select Committee is taking evidence, some of the evidence that it receives will be more sensitive, tactful and aware of the difficulties faced by the constituents in those Kent constituencies than was evident in some of the stuff that came out during the arguments that preceded the presentation of legislation to this House. I read with some interest and some alarm the paper called "We Need the Channel Tunnel Now", which no doubt the Select Committee will have to take into account. There is a splendid collection of cartoons of what will happen if and when the Channel tunnel, in its current form, actually happens. It is one of the most tactless pieces that has been produced.
There are eight pictures. They talk about the fast approach to the terminal, about passports being checked without passengers having to leave their cars and about the shuttle being ready and waiting. The family described in this set of cartoons may well be my constituents. They may not at any stage have spent any money in Britain before they get into the shuttle and are whisked across to France. When they reach France they stop because they need a pause for light refreshment. And where do they stop? They stop in Sangatte in France. Not a penny is spent in England.
If the promoters of the Bill wish to allay the fears of those who live in the south-east, I hope that when they present their evidence to the Select Committee and are questioned carefully by hon. Members, who no doubt will represent constituencies in Kent, they will take into account the fact that if at any time they had suggested that money will be spent in Kent and that Kent will suddenly become alive with fast food shops, hotels, boutiques and the very best sort of trading, which I am sure would be of great value to the shopkeepers, ratepayers and councils of Kent, there might not have been quite the opposition and determination to emphasise the negative side. Some of that material has been tactless in the extreme. I hope that the promoters of the Bill will take into account the fact that those colleagues who find that their areas are growing and developing as a result of the changes will therefore be encouraged to accept them.
The Select Committee will also no doubt be presented with a great deal of evidence about public opinion. One of its tasks will be to judge whether public opinion is right in this case, and whether public opinion is taking into account the long-term as well as the short-term benefits. According to a MORI poll, only 37 per cent. of the public in Kent are in favour, and the British public as a whole are in favour only by a very slight majority—51 per cent. The Select Committee should recognise that in Calais only


9 per cent. of the public are against, while 89 per cent. are in favour. That is a ratio of 10 to 1 in favour, yet France has exactly the same problems.
The public in France will also be living on a building site for the next five years. They will also have all the difficulties surrounding the removal of spoil and the mess created by building works. They, too, will have all the worries about terrorism and God knows what, yet in Calais the public are 10 to 1 in favour. It cannot just be because the area around Calais is more deprived than the area around Dover. If we look at the whole of France, we find that the figures are much the same. Only 10 per cent. of the French people are against, and they are outnumbered seven to one by those who are in favour. And France is a more prosperous country than this nation.

Mr. Forth: Does my hon. Friend agree that it is possible that the disparity between the economic wellbeing of France, the Pas de Calais, on the one hand, and the south-east of England, including Kent, on the other, goes a long way towards explaining the disparity in attitude? Does she agree that it is precisely because the tunnel will affect a relatively prosperous area in the United Kingdom where people——

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. I have allowed considerable latitude, but I cannot allow the debate to go so wide as the hon. Gentleman seeks to push it.

Mrs. Currie: I am grateful to my hon. Friend the Member for Mid-Worcestershire (Mr. Forth) and to you, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I hope that the Select Committee will consider carefully whether there is any logic in the argument that a poor part of France is in favour and a wealthy part of England is against, when the whole of France is in favour and much of England is against. Yet France is the wealthier nation. The argument simply does not wash.
What worries me is that the people of France seem much more aware of the matter. I hope that the Select Committee will take evidence in France and that it will take every opportunity to balance the views presented to it with the views expressed in France. The people of France seem to be more optimistic about and interested in the scheme, and it would be a pity if some of the negative attitudes that we have heard tonight prevented us from making the most of the opportunities available.

Mr. Cash: Will my hon. Friend remember that the precedents in such matters lead us to the conclusion that there should be nominations, not only by the Committee of Selection but by the House, in accordance with the general principle applicable to hybrid Bills, so that such evidence is properly considered? Would she go further, in the light of her arguments, and suggest that we should invite French witnesses to appear before the Committee and give evidence?

Mrs. Currie: My hon. Friend will be aware that later in tonight's agenda—I suspect that we shall reach it at about 5 am—there will be the opportunity to consider whether the Select Committee should be able
to adjourn from place to place within the United Kingdom.
If my hon. Friend is still following the debate with the great interest that he has shown so far, he will have the opportunity to suggest that the Select Committee might go

further than the United Kingdom, which might make it a highly attractive proposition for the nine Members who are likely to be nominated to serve on it.

Mr. Cash: Does my hon. Friend also agree that, on occasion, petitions have been heard from the citizens of Boulogne, let alone the citizens of Calais?

Mrs. Currie: I am sure that that is the case, and I hope that the Committee will take every opportunity to hear both sides of the argument, and that includes the arguments from France. I would deplore any argument that simply suggested that we should consider only the benefit to the United Kingdom, for we are partners in Europe, and the welfare of our partners in Europe is of interest to us. I hope that that will be taken into account.
I hope that Select Committee will take evidence that examines the long-term prospects for the United Kingdom and Europe, which will benefit from closer links. Those closer links can only be beneficial. Throughout economic history, communications have been the prerequisite for economic development. Outside my home there is a Roman road. The first thing the Romans did was to build roads all over Europe. They were then able to take peace, prosperity and development across Europe. The Spanish crossed the Atlantic. No doubt there was a debate about how that was not needed either, but it led to the development of the new world and to increased prosperity in Europe.
The British built the first canal system, then the railway system, and then they exported the railway to the subcontinent of India, South America and North America, thereby opening untold opportunities. In those respects, air travel—the latest form of mass travel— is still in its infancy, but it is hoped that the effects on air travel of the proposed changes will also be taken into account by the Select Committee. One effect of taking the Bill to a Select Committee and of fully exploring the opportunities for competition that are offered by the tunnel will be to reduce the price of air travel to Europe, for which we shall all be profoundly grateful.
The Channel tunnel is a link of the same sort and it will stand history with all the developments that I have mentioned. It will make mass transit easier and cheaper. There is not much argument about that, because one piece of evidence that the Select Committee will hear forcefully is that fares will fall. The only argument is by how much. The suggestion is at least 10 per cent. and, according to Phillips and Drew, as much as 40 per cent. That must be a good thing.
The tunnel will reduce the cost of transporting freight. I hope that evidence will be taken on what beneficial environmental effect that will have on the areas of Kent that are so clogged up with lorries at present. There are 1·5 million lorries a year carried on cross-Channel ferries. Whatever else the Channel tunnel will do, whatever else the rail link will do, it will relieve some of that pressure on the villages of Kent, and I have to say that I hope that colleagues who serve on the Committee will take every opportunity to put that fact not only to the Select Committee but to constituents, who are bound to benefit from it. It is the most exciting development in my view in the last 50 years, and I hope that it will come about.
I hope that one of the members of the Select Committee will be a representative of this side of the House from somewhere in the midlands or the north, which will benefit


considerably from the construction. Earlier this evening we heard an excellent speech by my hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Northfield (Mr. King), who pointed out how much his constituents and the people of Birmingham will benefit from the development. He will know that Metro Cammell is joining British Rail Engineering Limited, which has works in the vicinity of my constituency—and many of my constituents actually work there — in a consortium with a number of other companies, and that for the first time a number of companies that produce rolling stock for the railways are getting together, instead of competing, and are to produce a proper bid. I therefore recommend to the Committee of Selection that my hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Northfield, who currently is pulling faces at me, should be considered for this Select Committee. It seems to me that he will be able to make an excellent case on behalf not only of his constituents but of mine also.
I draw to my hon. Friend's attention the sort of figures that the Channel Tunnel Group was putting about at the time that it was making the bid. It was suggesting at that time that the north and west midlands and the south-east would be likely to benefit to the tune of about £24 million from providing reinforcing steel, that the east midlands would be involved to the tune of £52 million in castiron tunnel linings, and that the midlands in general, which we both represent, would be involved to the tune of another £100 million for precast tunnel linings. He will also find, if he looks, that ventilation and cooling equipment, which is very important in the midlands, will benefit by some £24 million, and that railway services will benefit by £180 million for special rolling stock for shuttle vehicles, £36 million vor electric locomotives and some £60 million for special passenger rolling stock and dual voltage locomotives. On top of that, British Rail has also announced that a substantial amount of money will have to be spent on upgrading rail and station facilities, and of course much of that work will be signalling and electronic equipment, which will also be made in our constituency, so I commend that to my hon. Friend.
Colleagues and inhabitants of the south-east are very lucky, for in the long run the tunnel can only bring more prosperity to that part of the world. They say that they do not want the tunnel. I think that that is partly because they would be the first to admit that they do not need it—that part of Britain is prosperous enough. I am not being sarcastic when I say that I feel sorry for them, and I am sure that my hon. Friends and colleagues from the midlands and the north will agree. I wish that the southeast could be relieved of the unwelcome burden of this unnecessary additional prosperity. I wish that it were all happening in the midlands and the north, where unemployment is so much higher. It was the good Lord who decided where the nearest crossing point was to be, and I think that we should all take advantage of that and make the very best of it.
I commend the Select Committee idea to the House, and I wish well to all those hon. Members who are to serve on it.

Mr. Robin Maxwell-Hyslop: I wish to address myself briefly to the subject of the best method of appointing the Committee, to which I have given some thought.

There were by precedent three possibilities. One 'was a Joint Committee of both Houses, and I think the Government were right to reject that. The second was a mixed Committee appointed partly by the usual huddle between the Whips' Offices, politely known as the usual channels, and partly by the Committee of Selection. The third option, the one that the Government rightly are recommending to the House, is that the entire membership of the Select Committee should be chosen by the Committee of Selection. I should like to explain briefly why, in my view, that is the right decision for the House to take.
The function of the Select Committee will have a judicial rather than a purely political content. It will be to hear the petitions of those of good locus standi, as it is called technically; that is, those who will be disturbed in their ownership of property by the measures to construct the tunnel, including the roads and railway lines leading to it, because that will involve a massive amount of compulsory purchase. It will be a tedious function for those on the Committee. They will need to appreciate the function that they are carrying out and not regard it as another opportunity to repeat Second Reading debates and pre-conceived positions for or against the tunnel.
My fear is that had the Committee been composed partly by nomination through the usual channels, even if those nominated had been wholly suitable for the task—I have no reason to suppose that they would not be—they would not have been seen to be so by those whose interests are affected. Although the Committee of Selection is not wholly impervious to influence from the Whips' Offices — it would be unreal for any of us to pretend that it is — it stands at one remove from those influences.
Moreover, it is not just a matter, as is sometimes the case, of a Committee of the House reflecting the balance of parties on the Floor of the House. The Committee of Selection is used to considering cross-party, non-political views as expressed in debate. It does that sometimes in the composition of Standing Committees. On the other hand, what its duty not to do is, if I may put it impolitely, to pack the Select Committee with hacks, of whatever persuasion they might be. That is very important.
The point that I wish to stress is the importance not only of the Committee discharging its duty fully and honourably, but of those representing the interests of the petitioners perceiving it in advance as being well qualified to do so. That is why I believe that the Government have taken the right decision in recommending to the House that the composition of the Committee should be chosen by the Committee of Selection. I hope that the House as a whole will believe that the appropriate body to trust with this invidious task should be the Committee of Selection, without any element of Whips's Office compromise shoved into it.

Mr. Jonathan Aitken: I am pleased to follow my hon. Friend the Member for Tiverton (Mr. Maxwell-Hyslop) because he has struck one important and serious note about the Select Committee and its method of selection. It is essential for the people of Kent to feel that they can have considerable public confidence in whatever structure is created to hear their grievances and to propose amendments to the Bill.


If it was thought that a substantial number of placemen had been appointed to the Committee, that would be a great mistake. As my hon. Friend said, in a way it will be a judicial committee. I think it was Bacon who once criticised 15th century judges, saying that they were lions but lions under the throne. It would be a great pity to see a Committee of lions but lions under the Whips' Office. This must be an independent-minded Committee.

Mr. Cash: During a previous intervention I pointed out that it is in accordance with normal precedent for membership of a hybrid Bill Committee to be nominated not only by the Committee of Selection but by the House. That is precisely what the amendment proposes.
With the greatest respect to my hon. Friend the Member for Tiverton (Mr. Maxwell-Hyslop), who said that it should be done by the Committee of Selection alone, it would perhaps be better to have a mixture of selection because that would be in accordance with precedent on hybrid Bills as described by the "Manual of Procedure in the Public Business 1984", which states:
The object of sending a Bill to a select committee is usually to provide for the taking of evidence. In accordance with this principle the practice is to send a hybrid to a select committee nominated partly by the House and partly by the Committee of Selection.
The very point about the need to ensure a degree of impartiality and that membership of the Committee should not be dominated by the Whips is not only met by ensuring that a proportion of the Committee should be selected by the Committee of Selection, but enhanced by nomination by the House as a whole.

Mr.Aitken: I am interested in what my hon. Friend says. I cannot enter the mists of past precedent, because, quite frankly, I do not have a clue as to how a Committee can be selected by the whole House. I have some confidence in the impartiality of the Committee of Selection. My hon. Friend the Member for Tiverton is, on balance, right to say that that is the best solution available.

Mr. Maxwell-Hyslop: It is generous of my hon. Friend to give way again. I wish that my hon. Friend the Member for Stafford (Mr. Cash) had made his intervention during my short speech, not that of my hon. Friend.
There is no precedent for a Bill of this sort. It is unprecedented in its magnitude. I think that we would deceive and mislead ourselves if we appealed to precedent rather than addressed ourselves to the reality of this unique position.

Mr. Aitken: My hon. Friend makes another valid point. We are in uncharted waters with the Bill and the procedure on which we are embarking.
There are two issues that the motion leads us to discuss — whether the Bill should be committed to a Select Committee, and, if so, what should be the numbers on that Committee. I have always argued that it would have been wiser to have this subject analysed first by a public inquiry. I would have preferred a shortened form as I am sensitive to the argument that some public inquiries can continue almost ad infinitum.
The Government may have miscalculated if they thought that by going through the hybrid Bill procedure they would end up with a shorter procedure than under a shortened public inquiry. There is no doubt that in the

uncharted waters in which we have been swimming for some months, a great deal of anger and resentment have been created as a result of what one might call the rush job or breakneck-speed approach of the Government.
Because of that, people in Kent and elsewhere are angry. There is no doubt that they will petition in unexpected and unprecedented numbers for amendments to the Bill. From the Thanet towns represented by myself and my hon. Friend the Member for Thanet, North (Mr. Gale), it appears that there will be something in excess of 500 petitions—none of them orchestrated, all of them sincere and all with a great deal of genuine grievances that they want redressed. If that is to be the scale of the petitioning from one community alone, it will be a marathon of a Select Committee, and special qualities will be required of those who serve on it.
The time has passed when one could continue the argument whether the Bill should be referred to a Selcet Committee. Wiser voices would have chosen a public inquiry, but, as that has not happened, we must move on from the argument whether it should be referred to a Select Committee. It will be, and we should accept that. However, when we consider the number of members who should be on the Select Committee, we enter difficult and unprecedented territory.
We should consider the task that the Committee will have to perform. The matter is being taken desperately seriously by the petitioners. They have rights which they feel have been trampled on so far and they wish to have a fair, just and open hearing. Attempts to shorten the proceedings of their petitioning have already been resented. I hope that the hearing of the petitions will be scrupulously fair. I am sure they will be.
Let us consider the task that the Committee faces. First, there is the possibility of enormous numbers of petitioners. There could easily be 1,000 or 2,000 petitioners all perfectly serious, covering many subjects. These will be distinct from the 30 or 40 petitions which will come from major groups like the district councils and the ferry companies. The Committee's work load will be tremendous and the time spent on the Committee will be enormous.
The geographical spread of the work of the Committee will also be considerable. There seems to be a notion that the Committee will only have to sit here in Westminster. Not a bit of it. The Government have already said that the Committee should sit in other parts of the country. There is also a slight misconception that those parts of the country will be confined to Kent. Those who have considered the issue carefully know that there is great unease up and down the country about the effects of the Bill, especially in the ports. There is a report from the well known stockbrokers Phillips and Drew which states—and I make no comment on the assertion—that 40,000 jobs could be lost, not just in the immediate Channel ports but in ports as far afield as Hull, Immingham, Felixstowe and around the coast to ports like Plymouth and Portsmouth. Some of the small ports, such as Shoreham, might be wiped out completely. It is probable that a Select Committee, doing its job properly and hearing petitions, would have to go to those places and work in many locations around the country.

Mr. Michael Brown: My hon. Friend is absolutely correct. The county council that covers the port that I represent, Immingham, and most of the public authorities


in that area are, I suspect, intending to be petitioners. My hon. Friend is right to draw the attention of the House to the fact that petitioners will come not only from the area that he represents but from many east coast ports as well.

Mr. Aitken: I am grateful for that corroboration from my hon. Friend.
There is an enormous volume of work for the Committee and quite a geographic spread around the country. It is possible that the Select Committee will have to hear evidence from France, and perhaps go to France. Much of the Second Reading debate tonight was taken up with an argument about what the French were doing in the Nord-Pas de Calais region and the cornucopia of grants, incentives and special new motorways which are designed to ensure that France rather than Britain will be the magnet for industrial development not just from France but from England as well.

Mr. David Mitchell: I listened to my hon. Friend earlier, but I am still perplexed and would appreciate it if he can clarify the matter. Does he advocate infrastructure expenditure paid for by the Government, because he has extolled the virtues of that in northern France? Does he want to see the same thing here? Or is he extolling the virtues of this Government's approach, where these matters are left to the private sector? Does he believe that we should encourage the new French Government along those lines? It is difficult for him to sustain the argument that he is attracted by the actions of the French and wants us to do the same here.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. I do not want to inhibit the debate overmuch, but the Minister is really seeking to extend it a long way beyond the limits of the motion before the House.

Mr. Aitken: I shall heed your warning, Mr. Deputy Speaker, and simply say that I decided not to respond when my hon. Friend replied to the previous debate, because I thought that, rather than seeking genuine elucidation of my views, he was seeking to make no more than a keen debating point. As he has now made that keen debating point for the second time this evening, perhaps I may briefly respond to it.
I am not extolling the virtues of what the French are doing. What they are doing is contrary to the assurances originally given at Avignon, that this would be a private sector project and would be financed by private money. That was the understanding. Both Governments have since decided to cheat on those assurances, the British Government to the tune of about £1 billion of public expenditure shoved in to benefit the private consortium, and the French, at a conservative estimate, to the tune of something like 50 billion French francs worth of public expenditure to support this private development.
I do not admire what the French are doing, but, as they are doing it, it is as well that the Select Committee should recognise that a serious challenge to British interests arises out of it. The dilemma for the British Government is whether to match that kind of expenditure or whether to say that that simply is not on and that we shall not proceed with the Channel tunnel at all if the French try to pull such a fast one. I hope that answers my hon. Friend's point.
What the French are doing could be germane to the kind of petitions that will come in for amendments to the Bill. I am sure that there will be amendments saying that the Bill

should not proceed unless a network of grants and incentives is provided for east Kent comparable to what is going on 20 miles away on the other side of the Channel.

Mr. Douglas Hogg: My hon. Friend perhaps knows more about the issues than any other hon. Member. How many petitions or petitioners does he envisage will come forward? Does he suppose that the Select Committee will be capable of dealing with what I anticipate will be a flood of petitions? What happens if it is not?

Mr. Aitken: The phrase "a flood of petitions" is particularly apposite because, as I said at the beginning of my speech, we are in uncharted waters, and we may well be in uncharted flood waters. There is no doubt that we shall see petitioning on an unprecedented scale. I think I am right in saying — my hon. Friend the Member for Tiverton will correct me if I am wrong — that never before has a Select Committee on a hybrid Bill seen more than 40 or 50 petitions. The signs so far from Kent are that from the Thanet towns alone there will be more than 500 petitions, and there could easily be three or four times that number from the rest of Kent. We do not know what kind of petitioning numbers will come in from other parts of the country. It is no exaggeration to say that there could be literally thousands of petitions.
The fault, if it is a fault, for that situation lies with the Government who have changed the ground rules for a project of this kind by saying that they will not have a public inquiry, such as we had on Sizewell, Stansted, and so on, but instead will try to get away with the hybrid Bill procedure. The response to that has been that if they are going to try to do that, the public will exercise their rights to the full and petition. That is why we have an unprecedented situation.

Mr. Lawrence: I have a great deal of sympathy for the people of Kent, as befits the Member of Parliament for Burton to whose area from Kent comes a lot of the produce that we turn into beer. But my hon. Friend began by saying that he was in favour of committing this matter to a Select Committee. It sounds very much as though the sheer volume of the petitions, the geographical spread of the visits and the total demand upon hon. Members will make it impossible for it to be committed to a Select Committee.

Mr. Aitken: It is like the story of the Irishman—I would not have started from here. If we were beginning all over again, even if I were a Minister—which is extremely unlikely—I would strongly advise, within the Department of Transport, that the right way to go is not to try to test the hybrid Bill procedure to destruction but to have what the late Anthony Crosland thought of—some form of shortened public inquiry. That would defuse much of the local feeling. We could then go on to what I think would be a fairly shortened and conventional hybrid Bill procedure.

Mr. Cash: Does my hon. Friend accept that it is slightly misleading to give the impression that there was an option between the hybrid Bill procedure and a public inquiry? In fact, it is essential, according to the procedures of the House, that a Bill of this kind be referred to a hybrid Bill Committee.

Mr. Aitken: There is no doubt that at some stage the Bill had to be referred to the hybrid Bill procedure. I am arguing, going back to square one, that we would have avoided the present situation of mass petitioning, with


passion and anger, if only we had had a demonstrably fair form of public inquiry, such as a shortened inquiry, or some form of local letting off steam process.
I think that I have said enough about the volume of work that the Select Committee will have to do and the geographical areas it will have to cover. In Kent it will not just be a question of sitting down in the towns. There is a network of footpaths used by ramblers and running clubs, one of which I am a member of. Those ramblers and running clubs care deeply about the routes of the footpaths and bridleways which will be removed. I think that the members of the Select Committee may need a bit of stamina to get round some of the routes if they are to do their job properly. They will also have to master a number of subjects — employment and health and safety considerations, road and rail links, environmental links, and so on. It will be a marathon task for the parliamentarians involved. They will need remarkable qualities. There was much jocular suggestion earlier about my right hon. Friend the Member for Old Bexley and Sidcup (Mr. Heath). I doubt whether even he has the patience of Job which will be needed to be a member of the Committee.

Mr. Maxwell-Hyslop: It is not only the Committee which may see snow fall in its summer, but the Court of Referees, which nobody has yet mentioned, which determines locus standi. It may find its summer contains January.

Mr. Aitken: On the matter of the Court of Referees, it is my earnest hope that the Government, being a Government of honour, will stand by the promises they have given to follow the precedent set by the 1973–74 Channel Tunnel Bill. In that Bill the Government gave an assurance that they would not challenge the locus standi of any petitioner. The spokesman for the Liberal party read out the relevant sections tonight. As he was doing so there was an interesting exchange. He read out the passage which said that the Government would not challenge the locus standi of any petitioner whose petition conformed to the basic requirement of relevancy. I said, rather quietly perhaps, that the Government had already conceded that, and the Secretary of State nodded and said they had. I hope Hansard picked that up. It is certainly a matter of record between the Secretary of State and myself that confirmation was given. Therefore, I think that there is no doubt that the Court of Referees should not have to do a very arduous job if the Government stick by the precedents and their pledges and do not challenge the locus standi of anybody who is a bona fide resident of Kent with a relevant petition.
I shall turn now to the issue of whether it should be nine or 11 good men and true. I hope that I have said enough to show that the work load will be tremendous and the stamina requirements will be great. I think it is a task that would be best shared by a larger rather than smaller number of hon. Members. I pity those who have to be on the Committee. My hon. Friend the Member for Derbyshire, South (Mrs. Currie) said that I should be on the Committee. I think that I am probably almost the only person who is automatically disqualified. If by any chance I were asked to serve, I would not hesitate to do so, but I fear that my interests would be considered too close.
I am a little worried about the membership of 11. Only a few weeks ago, I was appearing in front of the Select Committee on Standing Orders, on some of the ground that the petitioners will be on, and the Committee, in the face of the complex arguments, divided equally, straight down the middle. The Committee was deadlocked. Mr. Deputy Speaker, quite rightly—I praise rather than criticise him for it—decided not to use his casting vote. However, I would not like to see the Select Committee faced with the same problem. I mention that instance simply to show that 11 members might be too few.
Of the amendments, the one suggesting that 11 is the right number is the correct way to go. I pity those 11 right hon. and hon. Members who are called to serve on the Committee, but that is the right number so that the Bill can proceed to a Select Committee.

Mr. Michael Brown: I shall follow the points raised by my hon. Friends the Members for Tiverton (Mr. Maxwell-Hyslop) and for Thanet, South (Mr. Aitken).
I am serving on a private Bill. It would be wrong for me to reveal the discussions in which we are engaged. However, I want to stress the point made by my hon. Friend the Member for Tiverton about the proposed Select Committee for the Bill. A Select Committee of this kind is there very much in the way that Members are there in a private Bill Committee, in a judicial capacity. This requires them to consider the evidence of the promoters of the Bill, to listen to the cross-examination by those representing the petitioners, and then to listen to the case made by the petitioners, and then to listen to the case made by the petitioners, the evidence that they submit, and how that stands up to cross-examination by the counsel representing the promoters.
It is wholly wrong for many of my hon. Friends to suggest that this hon. Member should serve on the Committee because he is very much in favour of the Bill, or that that hon. Member should do so because he is in favour of the Bill and also come from the midlands, the south-west or wherever. Those who serve on the Select Committee should be hon. Members who have no particular interest in favour of, or against, the Bill. It is because they are to take a judicial decision that I am concerned that as a result of the intense lobbying that is going on, there cannot be an hon. Member who has not already been subjected to a deluge of documents from public relations companies, such as those that I received from the Eurotunnel.
Because this matter has been so much debated, already entrenched positions in favour of or against the Bill may have been taken by many hon. Members—perhaps all 650 of them—and there will be difficulty in finding the necessary independence that is the hallmark of a private Bill.

Mr. Cash: I agree with my hon. Friend 100 per cent. on this point. However, I draw his attention to the declaration that he was required to sign when he took his place on the Committee considering the private Bill, which he would not have been allowed to join had he not been able to sign the declaration, because it precludes him from sitting on a Committee considering a Bill in which he has a direct interest. The same principle has to apply to a


hybrid Bill, because the Committee is looking at the private interests of the matter that is the subject of deliberation.

Mr. Brown: My hon. Friend is correct. I have served on a number of private Bill Committees and I am beginning to become fairly familiar with the procedure. The private Bill procedure is a good avenue for ensuring that people's rights are protected and examined. One of the crucial reasons why petitioners have so much respect for the private Bill procedure is that they know and have confidence in the fact that hon. Members serving on such Committees have signed a declaration. My hon. Friend the Member for Stafford (Mr. Cash) is right to say that that declaration includes a form of words that clearly shows to all concerned, especially to petitioners, that those hon. Members who are adjudicating in such a Committee have no particular interest or concern one way or the other.
It does credit to the Committee of Selection that it has usually been very successful in selecting hon. Members to serve on Committees considering a range of private Bills. Certainly in my case, when I am appointed to consider private Bills, I think I can honestly say that I am totally indifferent to whether a Bill becomes an Act. That is the frame of mind in which those appointed to this Select Committee should consider the Bill.

Mr. Michael Portillo: I am worried that my hon. Friend the Member for Brigg and Cleethorpes (Mr. Brown) is in some danger of exaggerating when he says that it may be impossible to find any hon. Members who have not taken up a position in relation to the Bill. It is true that hon. Members will be deluged with representations. That is true of many different subjects. I believe, however, that my hon. Friend comes close to insulting the intelligence of hon. Members if he believes that, having sorted through the material that is sent to them, there are not many hon. Members who could preserve their independence of judgment.
There are many hon. Members with constituency interests. We have discussed this aspect during the debate tonight. Leaving that aside, does my hon. Friend not believe, on reflection, that he is in some danger of exaggerating when he suggests that all 650 hon. Members will become so entrenched that they will not exercise independent judgment, as befits the judicial nature of this Select Committee?

Mr. Brown: I am not sure that I can agree with that. Those Conservative Members who have caught your eye, Mr. Deputy Speaker, have invariably mentioned the way in which the Channel tunnel will touch their constituencies. At first, perhaps, one might imagine that the Bill would affect only those in Kent and the south-east corner of England, but it is clear that the implications of the Bill will touch the constituencies of many hon. Members, who are bound to veer in favour of the Bill or against it.
My hon. Friend the Member for Derbyshire, South (Mrs. Currie) suggested that my hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Northfield (Mr. King) might serve on the Committee because he represented the west midlands manufacturing, engineering and motor car industries and Metro Cammell. I submit that that is precisely the sort of thing——

Mr. Kenneth Hi: rose——

Mr. Brown: May I finish making this important point. My hon. Friend the Member for Derbyshire, South said

that my hon. Friend the Member for Northfield should be considered by the Committee of Selection to serve on the Select Committee on the basis that he would be able to reflect on the benefits of the infrastructure and investment that would accrue to the west midlands. Therefore, she suggested, he would be a candidate, on the ground that he would assist the west midlands during consideration of the Bill.
I should think that Labour and Conservative Members who represent Humberside and the ports of Grimsby, Immingham or Hull will have been lobbied by their county council and district councils against supporting the Bill. My hon. Friend the Member for Grantham (Mr. Hogg), representing a steel constituency, will have been lobbied by Euroroute and the promoters of the Bill on the ground that there will be a tremendous British steel content. All hon. Members whose constituencies adjoin mine in the county of Humberside are bound to have been influenced for or against the Bill.

Mr. Bill Walker: Is my hon. Friend suggesting that the only hon. Members who may be capable of serving on the Committee are those from Ulster, the Western Isles and the Orkneys and Shetlands?

Mr. Brown: I note my hon. Friend's point. Basically, he indicates that the Selection Committee will have to look closely at the matter before it makes its nominations and bear in mind the points I have made. I submit that a minority of hon. Members may genuinely fall into the category referred to by my hon. Friend the Member for Enfield, Southgate (Mr. Portillo). I imagine that all hon. Members from the county that I have the privilege of representing would ask, "How would my decision as a member of the Select Committee benefit my constituency?" I regret that however much an hon. Member may try to divorce himself from that thought, it is bound to be there when a marginal decision has to be taken.

Mr. Hind: Perhaps my hon. Friend will consider the fact that all hon. Members are incapable of closing their eyes to their constituency interests. As hon. Members, we would have to behave, for example, as Government Ministers are expected to do and consider the national interest first and foremost, in the same way as a member of a national committee would do. Otherwise, nobody would be capable of sitting on the Committee and making a judgment that was not influenced by a lobbying group or constituency.

Mr. Brown: In an ideal world, it is correct that the principle of the House is that all hon. Members represent the nation. I have to concede—I am sure that most of my hon. Friends will agree—that it is very difficult for hon. Members to resist the arguments that come from their constituencies when touching such matters. Of course, in theory, we should submerge our constituency interests to the wider interests of the country. On the other hand, hon. Members represent constituencies. It is perfectly right and proper that, when we represent our constituencies in the Chamber, sometimes we are tolerated when we allow our constituency interests to subsume the national interests. In an ideal world, what my hon. Friend suggests should happen, should happen, but I cannot believe that it is likely to happen.
I must confess that if I were to serve on the Select Committee, while I would do my utmost to divorce my self


from the representations that might have come to me in the past and try to block out from my mind any constituency interest, occasionally, when a marginal decision was being taken, I would be bound to do that. The way in which I might question a witness or counsel might lead me in one direction because I have at the back of my mind, subconsciously, the feeling that if I can persuade the petitioners that the promoters are right to suggest something there will be a benefit to the steel industry in Scunthorpe.

Mr. Cash: I support the argument that my hon. Friend is advancing and remind him that the matter is regulated by the Standing Orders of the House and is not merely one of opinion. Standing Order 120 deals with the declaration to which I referred earlier and is paraphrased on page 992 of "Erskine May" as follows:
If a member who has signed this declaration should subsequently discover that he has a direct interest in a bill, or in a company who are petitioners against a bill, he will withdraw from the committee, after stating the fact, and may, if necessary, be discharged by the House (or by the Committee of Selection) from further attendance.
The extremely cogent argument that my hon. Friend is advancing is endorsed in principle and by the Standing Orders.

Mr. Brown: I am grateful to my hon. Friend. "Erskine May" makes the point even better than I can. The quotation that my hon. Friend has read out shows that there will be many hon. Members whose constituencies will be touched either directly or indirectly by the impact of the Bill, and the Standing Orders require hon. Members to give an undertaking, which they have to sign, that they will not be influenced by such an interest.
To revert to the intervention of my hon. Friend the Member for Southgate, I must concede that there are probably some hon. Members who fall into his category. I think, however, that they will be few and in the minority. The Selection Committee will have to work very hard and very carefully to ensure that it finds the few Members who I concede to my hon. Friend may be in that category, but I would say that every hon. Member who has participated in the debate so far will have fallen foul of the Standing Order that my hon. Friend the Member for Stafford (Mr. Cash) has quoted.

Mr. Portillo: My hon. Friend and I are getting closer together. He is beginning to concede that there are Members without constituency interests. I think he may have been slightly distorted in his vision by the interest that his constituents have and that of the constituents in surrounding constituencies. I put it to him that there are quite a large number of constituencies where there will be no direct interest.
It seems that my hon. Friend is moving quite a long way towards denying any possibility of adjudication. If I followed his principle very far down the road, it would become impossible for any judge to reach independent judgment, because he would have opinions of his own. Hon. Members may have certain opinions, but they will be asked to set them aside when they come to exercise a quasi-judicial function. There will be a smaller number of Members who have a direct constituency interest, and that must, of course, preclude them from sitting on the Select Committee in the first place.

Mr. Brown: That must preclude them because the statement from "Erkine May" that my hon. Friend the Member for Stafford read out states that they will not be able to serve. I shall be unable truthfully to sign the declaration. There is no question of my being on the Select Committee, for the simple reason that I would have a constituency interest, end of story. I am but one of, I would submit, several hundred Members who will be unable to sign the declaration.

Mr. Cash: I shall repeat the passage in "Erskine May" on this issue, which states:
If a Member who has signed this declaration should subsequently discover that he has a direct interest in a bill, or in a company who are petitioners against a bill, he will withdraw from the committee, after stating the fact, and may, if necessary, be discharged by the House (or by the Committee of Selection) from further attendance.

Mr. Brown: That is correct. Reverting to the exchange between my hon. Friend the Member for Southgate and myself, the fact is that there will be many hon. Members on both sides of the House who will be unable to sign the declaration, however much they might be able to say, "There is a mild constituency interest, but I think that I am honourable enough a Member to block it out when I am serving on the Committee." The hon. Member concerned must sign the declaration, and he must state that there is no constituency interest.

Mr. Douglas Hogg: The problem is compounded by the fact that many right hon. and hon. Members, on both sides, represent various interest groups. Many Opposition Members are sponsored by trade unions, and many Members speak on behalf of trade interests. Some hon. Members are retained by companies. They may be unaware of the investment decisions of the group which they represent, yet these decisions may involve a financial interest in an aspect of this project.

Mr. Brown: I hope, that my suggestion will meet the problem raised by my hon. Friend. Many Members have interests outside the House, and that is to be commended. It is right and proper that hon. Members should bring to bear different experiences.
The Committee of Selection, in addition to eliminating hon. Members who may have a constituency interest, must consider the possibility of an hon. Member having a direct or indirect interest in the Bill because of his association with a company, advertising agency or public relations company. When the Committee of Selection has found nine or 11 hon. Members who pass the original test, it must then study the Register of Members Interests and consider the companies in which the Members may have an interest.

Mr. Neale: I suggest that my hon. Friend is seeking to simplify the matter too much. There is a fundamental difference between the opposed private Bill procedure and the hybrid Bill procedure.
It may be argued that every hon. Member already has displayed a latent interest in the Bill, simply because it has been debated and voted upon, not only this week, but on previous occasions. If we pursue my hon. Friend's argument to its ultimate conclusion, unless we find hon. Members who have manifestly abstained from the previous proceedings they will not be eligible for the Committee.
Under the opposed private Bill procedure someone makes a decision on the Bill, but in this case a decision


is made, not on the Bill, but on the substance and form of the Bill. It is a different matter from the private Bill procedure and will enable many hon. Members to be eligible to attend the Committee.

Mr. Brown: I accept that there is a fundamental difference between a Committee considering a hybrid Bill and a Committee considering an opposed private Bill.
The basic function of both Committees is to adjudicate on the evidence presented by the petitioners and to subject that evidence to cross-examination by the promoters. In that sense the example that I have quoted is similar to the opposed private Bill procedure. I should have thought that it was essential that the Selection Committee applies as far as possible whatever disciplines it applies to opposed private Bills when selecting hon. Members for Committees.
I acknowledge that on my criteria it may be difficult to find nine, let alone 11, hon. Members who fit the bill, but it is imperative that the Selective Committee attempts to do the job. Petitioners who petition in good faith, and as they might do for opposed private Bills, need the same reassurance as petitioners who appear before me on the London Docklands Railway (City Extension) Bill. It is unsatisfactory to say to them, "This is a particularly peculiar Bill and we cannot give the same assurance of the independence and integrity of hon. Members who serve on it as of those on opposed private Bill Committees because it is difficult to find nine hon. Members who meet the criteria." It is crucial that the Selection Committee makes the same attempt as it does with the selection of those who serve on opposed private Bills.

Mr. Cash: This point has been exercising me, because only today I attended the 60th anniversary of British Reinforced Concrete Engineering, which is one of our finest companies and provides a tremendous amount of infrastructure, welded mesh, fencing, and so on, which is likely to be used in the construction of the tunnel. Therefore, I take careful note of what my hon. Friend has said. As my hon. Friend the Member for Shipley (Mr. Fox), who is Chairman of the Selection Committee, is present, it is appropriate to mention that I find myself entirely precluded from any possibility of sitting on this extremely interesting Committee, on the basis of the declaration under Standing Order No. 120, and because of my strong local interest in the matter pertaining to the construction of the tunnel.

Mr. Brown: If I were a petitioner against the Bill, I would certainly feel aggrieved if my hon. Friend were selected before me. It would be improper for my hon. Friend to sit on that Committee, and if I were a petitioner I would not expect to see him on it. Similarly, if I were a petitioner against the Bill, while I would be delighted to see the hon. Member for Brigg and Cleethorpes serving on the Committee, I suspect that the promoters would be worried. We are beginning to see the difficulties that the selection Committee will face. We know of the skill and ability with which my hon. Friend the Member for Shipley (Mr. Fox) and his colleagues carry out their difficult task, but this task will prove to be beyond even their skills.
I return to the point raised by my hon. Friend the Member for Grantham that, without knowing it, hon. Members may have a financial pecuniary interest in the Bill and may find themselves serving on the Committee. I am not associated with any company which will contract

for the tunnel. Many hon. Members are public relations' or advertising agents' consultants. An hon. Member who is connected with, say, the ABC advertising agency may believe that the firm has no connection with the Bill. Having been nominated by the Selection Committee to serve on the Select Committee, he may feel able to sign the declaration to which my hon. Friend the Member for Stafford referred.
That hon. Member, doing work on an irregular basis for that advertising agency, may not be aware of the various clients for whom the agency acts. It is common for hon. Members to be paid a retainer, of perhaps £2,000 or £5,000, by companies with many clients, and hon. Members are required on occasion to give advice. As I say, the hon. Member who does work on an occasional basis for the ABC agency may not know that the firm acts for, say, the Euro Tunnel Group. He may in good faith have signed the declaration and taken his seat on the Select Committee.
It will be essential, therefore, for the Selection Committee to be armed with the constituency details of the Members under consideration and the Register of Members' Interests to ensure that a conflict of interest does not arise. All concerned, petitioners and promotors, have every right to feel that the quasi-judicial role which the hybrid Bill and opposed Bill system involves will be maintained in the Select Committee's deliberations on what will be a unique measure.
I note that my hon. Friend the Minister of State is not in his place. Hon. Members will recall that at the outset he said that he would reply to the debate after listening to all the contributions.

The Parliamentary Under-Secretary for Transport (Mr. Peter Bottomley): The Minister of State was in his place at the beginning of my hon. Friend's speech. The Minister has been in attendance for virtually the whole of this and the previous debate, and we should pay tribute to him for the care with which he has listened to the comments of hon. Members.

Mr. Brown: I do not complain about my hon. Friend's absence. He said, however, that he would listen to all the speeches and then reply and give advice. Perhaps we should adjourn momentarily to enable him to return.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: The hon. Member for Brigg and Cleethorpes (Mr. Brown) must either get on with his speech or resume his seat and let someone else speak.

Mr. Lawrence: My hon. Friend the Member for Brigg and Cleethorpes (Mr. Brown) is being most unkind to the Minister, who has been here steadily throughout the evening, as some of us know. The Minister was a little unkind in not giving us a speech at the beginning of this measure explaining why it is necessary to submit it to a special Select Committee.

Mr. Brown: Let me assure my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Burton (Mr. Lawrence) and my hon. Friend the Minister of State that it is absolutely right and necessary, given the length of time that they have to be here, that Ministers should attend to their other duties and perhaps have a cup of coffee. There is nothing wrong in that at all. I hope that I have the assurance of my hon. Friend the Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State that he will take note of what I say, especially about constituency and financial interests. Will he give me his assurance that


he will pass on my comments to the Minister before he winds up the debate? The Minister may want to make some comments.

Mr. Peter Bottomley: Not only can I give my hon. Friend the assurance that he seeks, but I can tell him that my hon. Friend the Minister of State would have been able to give him the same assurance, because I suspect that my hon. Friend gave a summary of what he proposed to say in his speech, and my hon. Friend the Minister of State will be here in his place and listening. I suspect that the Minister of State will be here before my hon. Friend has finished his speech.

Mr. Brown: That satisfies me completely.
I shall now turn to the matter of the size of the Select Committee. The Secretary of State recommends in the motion that there should be nine members on the Committee. I do not know the significance of that number, but no doubt we shall hear about that when the Minister offers his advice. It is always right for Back Benchers to recognise that in any motion laid before the House in which any Government recommend a number of hon. Members for a Committee, it is probably fewer than is necessary and it is always right to add two and bid up the recommendation,

Mr. Douglas Hogg: My hon. Friend has been here throughout the debate and is conscious of the large number of petitioners that may present themselves to a Select Committee. In that context, my hon. Friend will bear in mind what our hon. Friend the Member for Thanet, South (Mr. Aitken) said? My hon. Friend the Member for Brigg and Cleethorpes has considerable experience of the private Bill procedure. Can he tell us whether a private Bill Committee is able to form Sub-Committees and delegate to those Sub-Committees the right to listen to petitions? It may have occurred to hon. Members that the Select Committee will not be able to hear the petitions of all petitioners.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. I ought to draw to the attention of the House the fact that we are discussing not a reference to a private Bill Committee, but a proposal to refer a hybrid Bill to a Select Committee.

Mr. Hogg: I understand that Mr. Deputy Speaker, but by analogy it seems that what a private Bill Committee can do is probably open to the Select Committee to do. My hon. Friend the Member for Brigg and Cleethorpes (Mr. Brown) is making a speech and I am seeking guidance from him. Unfortunately, the Minister of State, Department of Transport, was not able to elucidate this point and I am not sure that he will be able to elucidate it when he returns to the House. That is why I am raising the matter with my hon. Friend.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: The hon. Member for Brigg and Cleethorpes (Mr. Brown) is required to address the House on matters that are relevant. The point raised by the hon. Member for Grantham (Mr. Hogg) in his intervention is irrelevant. Mr. Michael Brown.

Mr. Hogg: Further to that point, Mr. Deputy Speaker, and, with respect, no.

Hon. Members: Oh.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. The hon. Gentleman must not challenge my ruling.

Mr. Hogg: I am terribly sorry, Mr. Deputy Speaker. My hon. Friend the Member for Brigg and Cleethorpes is arguing that the Committee should consist of 11 members rather than nine. One of the arguments that may be relevant to this issue is the ability of a Select Committee to form Sub-Committees in order to multiply the opportunities for the presentation of petitions. In that context, the more members the better, because one can form more Sub-Committees. Therefore, we need to know whether Sub-Committees can be formed. That was the reason for my seeking information, and I apologise to you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, for having put my argument so clumsily.

Mr. Brown: I think, that I can help both my hon. Friend and you, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I have got the drift of my hon. Friend's point.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. I do not need the hon. Gentleman's help. I can manage very well on my own.

Mr. Brown: The assistance that I was offering to you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, was to say that I could respond to my hon. Friend without being out of order by addressing myself to the main point of this debate, which is on the first paragraph of the motion that stands in the name of my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Transport. What I now have to say will help you in this sense, that it will be completely in order, because I shall now relate my remarks on this matter to amendment (a), to which I am a signatory.
I began my remarks on this part of my speech by saying that I feel that whenever a Government of any political persuasion choose a number, they will inevitably try to get away with the lowest possible number. It is also inevitable that the Leader of the Opposition, whoever he may be, will take the view that whatever number the Government have thought of should be bidded up by one or two. And, sure enough, an amendment — a very good amendment, to which I am a signatory—has been tabled in the name of the Leader of the Opposition. It is signed by the Deputy Leader of the Opposition, the shadow spokesman for Employment and in particular by the shadow spokesmen for Transport.
I said earlier this evening when I intervened during the speech of my hon. Friend the Member for St. Ives (Mr. Harris), because it was suggested that I had signed this amendment for reasons other than support for the amendment, that I do not sign amendments or motions unless I agree with them. That is the only basis upon which I sign. Sometimes that means that I sign motions or amendments that have been tabled by hon. Members who do not belong to my political party. I look first at the amendment and then, and only then, at those who tabled it.
I thought that this was a very sensible amendment. I am anxious to guard against any Government trying to get away with too much governmental authority over petitioners and Back Benchers. It is the duty of the Opposition to represent Back Benchers. They are the legitimate avenue through which Back-Benchers' opinions, the opinions of potentially aggrieved parties, can be reflected. So quite rightly the right hon. Gentleman the Leader of the Labour party tabled a series of excellent amendments.
You will notice, Mr. Deputy Speaker, that I have signed only a certain number of amendments, not all of them. That clearly indicates that there are some amendments which I support and that there are others which I do not support. I strongly support amendment (a). Having regard to what was said by my hon. Friend the Member for Thanet, North (Mr. Gale) about the number of petitioners that inevitably there will be—he referred to hundreds of petitioners — tremendous stamina will obviously be needed by the nine hon. Members.
I suppose that the right hon. Gentleman the Leader of the Opposition could fairly be asked why he hit on the figure of 11.

Mr. Peter Snape: Before he tabled the amendment my right hon. Friend the Leader of the Opposition consulted us to discover what we thought would be the hon. Gentleman's view of the amendment and whether he could be enticed into signing it.

Mr. Brown: The hon. Gentleman and the Leader of the Opposition must have remembered the occasion two weeks ago when they laid a prayer to annul an order in which I had an interest. The seventh name on that prayer was mine, so they must have been encouraged by the fact that they can sometimes find support from me. I am delighted to hear the hon. Gentleman's news. I only wish that we had heard that information at the beginning of the debate from the hon. Member for Aberdeen, North (Mr. Hughes). I do not know whether the hon. Gentleman was in the Chamber at the time, but the hon. Member for Aberdeen, North intimated that he would not move amendment (a), which distressed me tremendously. The Amendment has been taken seriously by the Opposition. All the amendments tabled by the Opposition are perfectly proper, genuine amendments designed to improve the position and authority of the petitioners. The Opposition, in tabling amendment (a), were doing a signal service to the House and to the petitioners.

Mr. Derek Spencer: As the House of Lords sits in its judicial capacity with only five judges, does my hon. Friend believe that we should beware of having an overlarge Committee?

Mr. Brown: I agree with my hon. and learned Friend. Only four hon. Members consider private Bills, and my hon. and learned Friend has said that only five judges sit in the House of Lords in its judicial capacity. I do not know whether my hon. and learned Friend was here when my hon. Friend the Member for Tiverton spoke, but he said that we were in completely uncharted waters, and at least to that extent we must congratulate the Government on recognising that we are in an unusual position. More hon. Members will be necessary, bearing in mind the work load that they will have to undertake. There are many petitioners to the small opposed Bill that I am considering in committee, and it requires all the effort of four hon. Members to consider such a procedure. That is why the Government have chosen a minimum of nine.

Mr. Portillo: This section of my hon. Friend's speech worries me. Although he said that he signed the amendment for perfectly genuine reasons — I do not doubt that — earlier he waxed lyrical about the grave difficulty, or almost impossibility as he saw it, of finding a group of hon. Members who would be impartial and qualified to sit on the Select Committee. The logic of his

position, if he believes that it is so difficult to find hon. Members who can sign the declaration and who have no interest in the matter, should be to go for a smaller number than is proposed by the Government, instead of which he urges us to accept a larger one. That leads to the suspicion that he may be backing this amendment as a wrecking amendment. He may wish to have nothing to do with the whole show. If that is the case, it is a legitimate position for him to adopt, but it would be helpful if he would explain whether that is what he has in mind.

Mr. Brown: This is not a wrecking amendment, as the hon. Member for West Bromwich, East (Mr. Snape) would be the first to agree. understand my hon. Friend's point. It is much easier for five hon. Members to reach a consensus than it is for nine or even 11 Members. I support the amendment, although I understand why the Government hit on nine as opposed to the five members mentioned by my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Leicester, South (Mr. Spencer). This is no wrecking amendment. I would like to think that my hon. Friends, who might need some persuasion when they see the name of the right hon. Gentleman the Leader of the Opposition to the amendment, on seeing my name might read it, realise the value of it and be persuaded by the argument that we are adducing in its favour.

Mr. Bill Walker: In his consideration of the increase in numbers, did my hon. Friend bear in mind the huge number of petitioners, the length of time that the Committee would take and the fact that there is a quorum for the Committee? Given that there is a quorum, it is more likely to be met on a regular basis with a larger number of people upon whom to call.

Mr. Michael Brown: That was obviously one of the problems in the mind of my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State in tabling the motion. The volume of work will be such that there will not always be nine or 11 Members present all the time. That is why it will be necessary to have a larger number, bearing in mind that the Members will have to go to France and all round the country and hold sessions long into the future because of the volume of petitions. These incredible beings at the end of the day are only human, and they will not always be able to attend. Therefore, it was decided to have a higher figure to take account of the fact that some will be absent.
I observe that the Government imagine that anything up to six may be away at any one time. That may well meet my hon. Friend's point.
As my hon. Friend the Parliamentary Secretary correctly indicated, the Minister of State is in his place, refreshed, and will have got the gist of the brief argument that I have been adducing. On that note, therefore, I will say no more, and look forward to his reply.

2.57

Mr. Andrew Rowe: I believe that the number of members on the Select Committee will need to be kept as small as is reasonable because the length of time for which the Committee will have to sit will be inordinately long. It would be quite improper to remove too many Members from the other business of the House. Therefore, I would be opposed to having too large a number on the Committee.
As I understand it, there is no obligation on the Select Committee to put a term on its deliberations. It is entitled to continue as long as it feels it is necessary to do so to satisfy the petitioners who appear before it.

Mr. Bill Walker: My hon. Friend may not have heard quite clearly my intervention just now. The larger the number available, if a quorum of about three is accepted, the greater the opportunities for people to be absent.

Mr. Rowe: I think that there is considerable merit in allowing the members of the Committee to build up a coherence of understanding with the petitioners. That becomes difficult if large numbers of them are regularly absent. The more one persuades the Committee to meet as a smallish, coherent group, the better the deal the petitioner will receive.
The variety of petitions will be considerable. A large number of people of Kent rightly feel that it is too easily assumed that the creation of the tunnel will bring prosperity automatically to Kent. Earlier the hon. Member for Battersea (Mr. Dubs) said that there was a real possibility that Kent would be an overall loser rather than an overall gainer from the tunnel. We in Kent are as likely to suffer increased unemployment as increased employment. A body of petitioners will wish to make known its views about the various amendments to the Bill that might ameliorate that danger.
For far too long Kent has been the entry door to the United Kingdom for people and firms that have not waited even for a minute to see what the county itself could offer them. Instead, they have hurried on to inferior parts of the country that appear at first sight to offer a commercial advantage when they would have done much better by themselves and the people of Kent if they had stayed in our county.
The number of petitions may be reduced in the Joint Consultative Committee, of which the Minister of State is chairman, promises to continue its work right up to the opening of the tunnel so that the total impact of the new development on the county can be evaluated.
The Select Committee will have an important task to perform in sorting out the difference between petitions that are genuinely based on the tunnel and others. We have heard more than once in the debate the wholly misleading claim, for example, that the building of the missing link of the M20 is somehow tunnel-related. The missing link was the subject of my first parliamentary question as a Member of Parliament. I asked that it be reinstated in the road-building programme. That had nothing to do with the tunnel but with the fact that my consitutents had been clamouring for it for many years. They welcomed enormously the solemn pledge that it will be finished by, I think, 1989. That is reassuring. The fact that its cost is being bandied about by people who disapprove of the tunnel is irrelevant. The Select Committee will have to take careful note of the distinctions between such erroneous claims and others.
Another example is the tremendous need for a third crossing of the River Medway. It would be stretching credibility too far to say that we need it because of the tunnel proposal. We need it for other reasons, and I hope very much that we get it. That is the sort of thing that the Select Committee will have to evaluate.
The county as a whole also needs a great deal of extra road infrastructure so that it can stand a chance of competing with other parts of the United Kingdom that will benefit from the rapid transit of freight through the tunnel to London and further north. If we are to cope with the increased number of vehicles that will come into Kent, we shall require a better road system. Again, I do not think that all of that will be strictly tunnel-related. The Select Committee will need to consider that as well.
The Select Committee will need to be very flexible in its handling of petitions and petitioners. I made that point in the debate two days ago. While a Joint Consultative Committee quite rightly responds to public concern by altering certain aspects of a Bill, it is extremely difficult for petitioners to draft their petitions in detail in a form that meets their anxieties. It should be possible for them to put in a petition and to have it heard in slightly different form if that is the appropriate form at the time when the petition is heard.
I am serving on a private Bill Committee at the moment. I know that it is not a strict parallel—we have been told that by the Chair tonight—but there is no doubt that our petitioners have been ill-advised in some respects to pitch their objections in too precise and narrow a form. It has meant that some of the anxieties that they reasonably want to express cannot be expressed because they are not strictly covered in their petition. It would be quite inappropriate for a Select Committee, dealing with a matter of such tremendous concern, to narrow its interpretation of what is properly dealt with in a petitioner's petition to something that it too strictly defined.
Another group of petitioners that will come before the Select Committee comes from the agriculture industry. There is a clear sign that the compulsory purchase procedures associated with the Bill are likely to be oppressive to a number of farmers in Kent. Compulsory purchase procedures have been designed for the benefit of a private consortium. The rules suggest that the price offered has to be the open market value that would apply if the Channel tunnel were not being built and if the land were being sold in the normal way. The land will not be sold in the normal way. It is to be sold because of the tunnel. A number of petitioners will put in their petitions in the hope of obtaining a rather more equitable solution to the problem. Perhaps I should remind the House that the author of "Alice in Wonderland" was for 20 years a second permanent secretary at the Treasury. We can understand a great deal about Treasury procedure if we bear that piece of information in mind.
My point about the need for the Select Committee to be as flexible as possible in its handling of petitioners is exemplified by the danger that good agricultural land will be lost not simply because of the compulsory purchase of land needed for particular parts of the construction, but because the amount of trespass and interference with farming that appears these days to be the inevitable concomitant of residential or warehousing development will affect farms that will not be affected directly through compulsory purchase. Again, the Select Committee will need to take a sympathetic view of petitioners who wish to bring those matters to its attention.
Similarly—this is a further example of the elasticity of mind required of those who serve on the Committee — there will be a considerable body of petitioners concerned with such matters as plant health. The creation


of the tunnel will, I suspect, almost certainly mean a considerable increase in the volume of agricultural produce entering this country. If the inspection procedures at the tunnel entrance are not satisfactory to ensure that that produce is not diseased, we may find that our record of good plant hygiene is threatened.
Another factor which concerns many of my constituents, and, I am sure, the constituents of many hon. Members is the danger of rabies. A group of petitions to be presented to the Select Committee will deal with the real anxiety that people feel about the possibility that the tunnel will make it easier for rabies to spread to this country.
I believe that it would be a mistake to enlarge the Committee too much, partly because it would then be difficult to secure a coherent view of the various petitions as they came in and partly because the Committee would have to sit for some time to give a fair hearing to petitioners, especially, dare I say, petitioners from Kent, who feel strongly that on this matter it is absolutely essential that their petitions receive a full and proper hearing.

Sir John Farr: I have been listening to my hon. Friend with great interest. He mentioned rabies, which is a very important issue. As he said, that danger has existed at the Channel ports for a number of years. How will the Select Committee comprise of people who can correctly interpret the skilled information which will be provided by witnesses during the Committee proceedings? It will require a certain amount of study on the part of several hon. Members on both sides of the House to be able to absorb the facts properly and to put two and two together to reach the right answer about the rabies threat. Does my hon. Friend agree that the task of selecting the Committee members should be performed by the wizard of Oz? It will be very difficult to find the right people.

Mr. Rowe: I can think of no hon. Member more like the wizard of Oz than the Chairman of the Committee of Selection. To that extent, I have some hope that that job will be performed satisfactorily. I am bound to say that lack of expertise has seldom been a reason for hon. Members failing to perform a duty. I hope that the Select Committee will call witnesses who will be able to inform the Committee precisely about the dangers and, perhaps more importantly, the nature of the precautions to obviate those dangers about which the House will need to know before it gives the Bill its Third Reading.
These matters are of fundamental importance. The possibility of rabies entering this country has existed ever since ships began to carry rats. However, that danger is more real with the creation of a fixed link. Therefore, it is essential that the Select Committee should call the right witnesses and report to the House on the best way to ensure that scourge stays away from our shores. I am grateful to my hon. Friend the Member for Harborough (Sir J. Farr) for raising that matter.
I conclude by re-emphasising the fact that the Select Committee should be free to spend as long as necessary to hear all the petitioners. It is important to the people of Kent that their petitions be heard in extenso, so that they are not only given the opportunity to air their anxieties and to suggest improvements to the Bill—and I believe that there is great scope for improving the Bill— but that they are seen to have been heard. There has been

considerable anxiety about the amount of time given to lodge petitions being too short. Let us at least ensure that when petitions are lodged they are treated flexibly and heard in extenso.

3.15

Mr. Bill Walker: My hon. Friend the Member for Mid-Kent (Mr. Rowe) has put clearly the situation as he sees it affecting his constituency. I find myself in a rather dangerous and delicate position. As hon. Members are aware, I represent a Scottish constituency. I have been struggling all evening to try to find reasons why I should support or oppose the Bill. I can honestly say that I have had a fairly detached view of it. The Channel tunnel seemed a long way from my constituency and from my constituents' interests.
From what I have heard this evening, I am in a dangerous position because I am beginning to think that there are so few like me in the House that we may well find ourselves on the Committee. That I look forward to with horror. So I must find some way between now and then of advising the Chairman of the Committee of Selection that some of my business interests will, I hope, mean that I can debar myself from selection.
Anyone who has listened to the many speeches that have been made this evening will realise that this Select Committee will be unique. As was said earlier, it will be moving into uncharted waters. There is no doubt that the people who will be affected by the Channel tunnel, the petitioners, will expect the House and the Committee, however it is composed, to give serious deliberation to their comments, remarks and views so that, whatever the outcome, they may feel that they have been dealt with honourably, fairly and justly. That is important.
It is all very well for hon. Members to jump on a particular bandwagon and make speeches about the advantages, imagined or real, that will affect them. The members of the Committee will have to be of a calibre and a type who are not debarred and there will be great difficulty in finding them. They will be called upon to act in this semi-judicial capacity in order to pass judgment on matters that are vital to the beautiful county of Kent.
I may at last have found an interest; thank goodness. My wife's family came from Kent. I hope that that debars me. I say that because when my wife's parents were alive I can remember spending many happy holidays in the beautiful county of Kent. My wife's first reaction to the Channel tunnel was to say, "Oh dear, what will they do to Kent?" It would be sad if, whatever happens as a result of the Committee being set up, the Committee did not take into consideration people's real and genuine fears.
If we are to believe, as I do, the comments made earlier by my hon. Friend the Member for Thanet, South (Mr. Aitken), there will be not 100 or 200 petitioners, but thousands. That being so, the Committee will be sitting for a long time. The task that it will perform in this hybrid Bill will be one in which from day to day they will be unsure of exactly what they are doing. It is not difficult when going over ground already covered by other Committees, but if one is entering into an area of this magnitude, which will be new to everyone involved, there is no question but that we shall require a Committee which produces the right balance from within the House as well as people who are not disqualified. How can we achieve a balance that will


produce a good Committee? Would we get it from a Committee of nine or from a Committee of 11, as amendment (a) suggests?
I have intervened once or twice during the debate. They were not frivolous interventions, although at times they might appear to anybody who was not interested in the proceedings to be something other than intentional attempts to get information and probe deeper. I have always believed that the more people who look at a problem, the more likely it is to get a balanced view. That is why we have juries of 12 in courts of law. Of course, when we have been required to set up courts, such as in Ulster, where problems have arisen and we have not had a jury of 12 there has been criticism that one cannot really expect to get a fair hearing. The petitioners must feel that they have had a fair hearing and must leave the Committee believing that they have been given a judgment that is honest and true.
I believe that, once the number of Members exceeds a certain point, we can have problems. Equally, when there is too small a number we have problems. The Government will argue that, in their judgment, nine is the right balance, especially when one considers their view that the quorum of the Committee should be three. I think that nine is not a good number. I believe that it would be better to have 12 and the nearest we have to that is 11.
You may well ask me, Mr. Deputy Speaker, why I did not table an amendment if I am interested in this matter. I hope that I have already answered that. I have been so far away and so detached from the problem that until tonight I had hardly given it a thought.
Therefore, I believe that 11 is a better number than nine. I believe that it would be better for the petitioners because they would have a greater opportunity of getting a fair hearing. It could be argued that with 11 rather than nine it would be more difficult to reach agreement. However, are we concerned with agreement or justice? I should have thought than in a semi-judicial situation we were primarily concerned with justice because of the wide range of matters about which the Committee will be required to hear from the petitioners.
One of those matters, mentioned by my hon. Friend the Member for Mid-Kent, is the value of land. There is no doubt that the value of land will go bananas, and it will be adversely affected in some cases. It will depend whether one wants to put up a construction which will benefit from the Channel tunnel or whether the land suffers from planning blight. Either of those cases is at the extreme end of the situation. No doubt, one will be delighted to sell land to those who will pay well over the odds for it, but equally there will be those who suffer from planning blight who will see the value of their property being adversely affected.
We are talking about the rights of individuals and groups. It is the duty of the House to protect their rights. That is absolutely essential. We can do that only if we produce a Committee that will be seen by the petitioners to be fair, just and honest.
Of course, many other matters will be looked at by the Committee such as trade, agriculture and health because the petitioners, in their different ways, will want to see whether they will be affected adversely or otherwise.

Sir John Farr: My hon. Friend is touching on an interesting point. In amendment (b) the Opposition, supported by others, have tabled an interesting suggestion which would take the membership of the Committee out of the hands of the Chairman of the Committee of Selection. A number of amendments in the name of the Leader of the Opposition have been selected by the Chair. Is it not a matter of great concern to the House that the Opposition are not moving the amendments? In my time in the House of Commons, whenever I have supported even one amendment, perhaps to the Finance Bill, I have been there with my Friends to move it. Here, vital amendments have been selected by the Chair, but, showing great discourtesy to the House, the Opposition are not present to move them. That is most culpable.

Mr. Walker: I am concerned that the amendments that have been selected have not been moved by those who tabled them. It does nothing for the standing of the House in the eyes of the public. There is no question but that politicians suffer substantially from the adverse publicity that frequently descends upon us because some politicians behave in a manner that the media judge not to be in accordance with the high standards that we preach.

Mr. Cash: Would my hon. Friend care to note the names of the right hon. Members who have put their names to the amendments? They include the Leader of the Opposition, the deputy Leader of the Opposition, the shadow Leader of the House, and a number of other persons who hold senior positions. Is this not an abuse of the procedure of the House?

Mr. Walker: I cannot say that I am happy about the situation, but, in the phrase frequently used in the House, one can say that they do not care. Quite why they would go to the trouble of tabling amendments and then judging that it would not be wise to be here to move them, let alone speak to them, is a question for them to answer outside the Chamber. The cynicism with which the public views politicians will not be helped by the fact that such situations arise.
The Opposition say that they care about jobs and the effect that unemployment has on their position in the polls, to which they appear to give credence. The public will look at the Committee and see the way in which it is constructed, and will realise that one amendment suggested an increase in the number of Committee members from nine to 11, and one dealt with how the members of the Committee would be nominated. When they find that the amendments have not been moved, they will realise that the Opposition did not table them for any reason to do with the way that business is conducted, or the way that the Committee will deal with the matter.

Mr. Stott: This motion has been debated for four hours.

Mr. Walker: The hon. Gentleman is twittering on about four hours, but he will know that I have not been on my feet for more than 10 minutes, which is a small contribution. I do not apologise for treading on corns if I am. I am a Scot, who is far away from Kent, and I am not all that concerned about whether we build a Channel tunnel. I am here because of my concern that the people of Kent and elsewhere who will be affected substantially by the proposals are satisfied that at least the House took seriously how the members of the Committee were to be


chosen and appointed and how it was to function. The latter would also depend on the numbers. I am deeply concerned that Opposition Members are not here to speak to amendment (b), which is concerned with how the Committee members are to be chosen.

Sir John Farr: With respect to my hon. Friend, he is missing the point that I was making. It is not the fact of having tabled an amendment and not being here to move it. That is a discourtesy. but it happens every day. Two days ago at Question Time three hon. Members were not present when their questions were called.
It is a grave discourtesy, not simply to table the amendments and not be here, but to have them selected and not be here. The selection of an amendment by the Chair is a rare red letter day for a Back Bencher, but to have a handful selected by the Chair and not care sufficiently to be here to move them is a grave discourtesy to the House.

Mr. Stott: I have been here for four and a half hours. I have been here all the time.

Mr. Walker: My hon. Friend has spelt out clearly what he and the rest of us feel about what we judge to be discourtesy to the Chair. Opposition Members have not been here, although their amendments were selected. [Interruption.] Mr. Deputy Speaker, you will gather from the sedentary interventions from Opposition Members that we have trodden on a corn. Indeed, we have brought them back to life. Correction, Mr. Deputy Speaker: we have brought one back to life. The hon. Member for Southwark and Bermondsey (Mr. Hughes) is not as alive as one would wish, but that is not surprising because he is with the Liberal party. They are never quite sure where they stand in any given situation. For most of the time they sleep when it matters. They agree with one thing and they agree with the other. Sleeping seems to be a satisfactory way of arriving at this middle-of-the-road situation. Of course, there is a danger, because those who sleep in the middle of the road may get run over.

Mr. Eric Forth: Perhaps my hon. Friend would agree that a sleeping position is perfectly safe and probably would not upset anyone.

Mr. Walker: I am sure that that is so. I expect that the attempt is made regularly by those who wish to leave everyone happy by not giving offence to anyone. It is a difficult position to achieve, and sometimes it leaves them in what might he described as a sad situation.

Mr. Greg Knight: For the past 10 minutes my hon Friend has given the House some reasons to consider in wondering whether we want to support the motion. Hon. Members have informed the House of the difficulties that the Select Committee will have.
I am seriously concerned about whether we should go ahead with this procedure, but I should like to know the consequences of my vote because I would not like to see the Bill lost. Could my hon. Friend tell the House what would happen if the House declined to support the motion and did not agree to set up a Select Committee? I should not like the Bill to be lost, but I am concerned about the disadvantages emphasised by many hon. Members who have spoken.

Mr. Walker: I would not attempt to answer that question because you would probably rule me out of, order Mr. Deputy-Speaker. Should by chance the vote go

against the Government on the motion it would leave them in a less comfortable position than our Liberal friend across the Chamber.

Mr. Cash: Will my hon. Friend the Member for Tayside, North (Mr. Walker) reflect on the fact that he is imitating Charles James Fox? A similar event occurred in 1780 or thereabouts. Charles James Fox said to Lord North, who was apparently asleep on the Bench, that he was making an important speech and the old Prime Minister was not listening. The old Prime Minister, unlike the hon. Member for Southwark and Bermondsey (Mr. Hughes), woke up and said, "I wish to God I weren't."

Mr. Walker: My hon. Friend writes books of funny stories, and Members who have read them will know that one of the titles is something like "Hit me there again." I have the feeling that If I keep on talking someone will say "Hit me there again."
Amendment (b) is important. I would prefer—this may surprise some of my colleagues — to leave the nomination of members to the Committee of Selection. I think that, on the whole, the Committee conducts itself in a manner with which we can be satisfied. Choosing Committee members is difficult. On balance, the Committee has chosen right more than it has chosen wrong. On two occasions which I can think of the Government have been embarrassed when Committee members have been chosen. On those occasions the Government probably felt that the Selection Committee had not served them well. We must ask whether the Committee serves the House well. That is what matters. Administrations come and go, but the House remains. The procedures and conventions of the House are more important than the transient nature of any Administration, of whatever party.
I believe that the House would be well advised not to accept amendment (b). I should like to see amendment (a) accepted and amendment (b) rejected. I believe that the Selection Committee will be able to find nine members, or preferably 11, and I am confident that it will find members who cannot be debarred. My right hon. Friend the Member for Old Bexley and Sidcup (Mr. Heath) would be an excellent choice as Chairman of the Committee. I am not being frivolous in saying that.
Many right hon. Members who have recent experience in government would also benefit from the trials and tribulations of the Committee. I would like to think that, if we were to enter uncharted waters, those at the helm were experienced in matters off the House, and that they would be pathfinders in a way that would make Back Benchers happy and comfortable. I do not put that forward in a frivolous way, although I find some humour in the thought of what it may do to those individuals who suddenly find themselves undertaking such a task. It is an important job. We must put forward people of substance and standing who are recognised and accepted both inside and outside Parliament as individuals who have shown., by their actions in political life, that they have independent minds and are prepared to take action that sometimes makes them unpopular with their colleagues.

The Minister of State, Department of Transport (Mr. David Mitchell): My hon. Friend the Member for Grantham (Mr. Hogg), who opened the debate, has posed


me a problem. One of the themes of his speech was that the views of the Front Bench on matters appertaining to the Committee and its membership should be ignored. Therefore, it was slightly difficult for me to consider my response to the debate. My hon. Friend suggested that many individuals' rights would be touched on, and he questioned whether all those whose rights would be affected would be able to petition. That important fact must be considered.
The House is not familiar with the procedures involved with a hybrid Bill, as hybrid Bills do not come forward often. Certainly, a hybrid Bill involving a project on such a scale as this has not previously come forward. In many ways, we are dealing with a unique occurrence. Therefore, there has been controversy about whether it would have been better to have a local planning inquiry instead of a hybrid Bill. I do not propose to take up that issue at this stage. What is important is that people in Kent whose rights as private individuals are to be affected should have the procedures of the House in respect of a hybrid Bill properly explained to them.
My Department, at my instigation, has produced a pamphlet entitled "The Channel Tunnel: How to make your voice heard". About 20,000 copies have been printed, circulated and made available throughout Kent, especially in council offices, public libraries and other public buildings of that sort. It has provided an opportunity for ordinary folk to acquire an understanding of the way in which the hybrid Bill procedure works and how, if they wish to petition, they should go about it.
The pamphlet has an introduction which provides an explanation of Parliament and the Bill. It then describes who will sit on the Select Committee, who can petition, what the individual can petition about, what is a petition, when the petition has to be in by, how a petition is delivered, how the Select Committee meets, what happens in the Select Committee and how much it costs to petition. There is then a step-by-step guide for those who want to petition and a further guide to the processes of the House and of the other place through which a hybrid Bill has to go. Finally, it has on the back a specimen draft of John Smith coming forward with the terms that he might set out in his petition.
It is not for me to teach my grandmother how to suck eggs, but it may be that there are some hon. Members who are not especially familiar with these procedures and who may even find the pamphlet, which has been produced as a layman's guide for the people of Kent, quite helpful. In assembling the information for it, I found that there was an enormous amount that I did not know. I commend the pamphlet to hon. Members——

Mr. Cash: rose——

Mr. Mitchell: I give way to my hon. Friend, with whom in the past I have been involved in the preparation of a private Member's Bill, which means that we have battled together.

Mr. Cash: Everything that my hon. Friend has said, and everything that I have heard about the Government's conduct in this matter—I speak as someone who was a parliamentary agent for a long time — is quite remarkable and a great tribute to the fairness with which the Government have sought to deal with petitioners. Were

it not for the late hour at which we are sitting, that is something that could be explained in more detail. It is a remarkable tribute to the Government that they have taken the steps that my hon. Friend has outlined, and he deserves personal congratulation for it.

Mr. Mitchell: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for his generous words. It is not that we are seeking to stoke up the opposition, despite the hope of my hon. Friend the Member for Thanet, South (Mr. Aitken) that that might be so. We are trying to ensure that people in Kent are not disadvantaged by not knowing what their rights and opportunities are. It is a genuine attempt to seek to help.
My hon. Friend the Member for Sevenoaks (Mr. Wolfson) expressed concern about British Rail's line capacity in his area and the position of commuters. This led him to make a plea that someone who understands commuters' problems should serve on the Select Committee. Those who will make the selection will no doubt read and note his suggestion. British Rail's capacity is not constrained in the way in which he seemed to fear, however. The position is that the boat trains which now operate, especially from Victoria, will cease to run as soon as the Channel tunnel is open. This will mean extra capacity on the lines through the south-eastern network, without the problems which would prevent the operation of commuter services for my hon. Friend's constituents or for others going further down into Kent.
The hon. Member for West Bromwich, East (Mr. Snape) is busy conversing on the Opposition Front Bench. I do not know whether he wishes me to give way so that we can all hear his comments. I know that he is a profound supporter of British Rail, and I do not wish to prevent him from intervening. The hon. Gentleman was not talking loudly enough for me to hear, and I am not sure whether he intended that I should.
My hon. Friend the Member for Sevenoaks raised the question of the effect on jobs in Kent. He questioned whether an hon. Member representing Kent could serve on the Committee. It is not for me to form a judgment on that. It would not be right, in any way, for any Member whose constituency is in that part of Kent that will be effected by the Bill to be involved in the Committee. That would be inappropriate.
In the next seven years we will face not job losses but job shortages. There will be a shortage of people for the available jobs in this part of Kent. The House has not addressed itself to that matter and it is profoundly different from those discussed by most hon. Members. They have discussed the effect, seven years from now, on jobs in Dover.
I am the chairman of the joint consultative committee in Kent, and we have started to consider the problem—the availability of labour. We have asked the promoters to let us have some idea of the various skills that will be required and the numbers of people with those required skills. Thus, we will obtain a pattern of the labour required. We have asked the Department of Employment and the Manpower Services Commission to give us some idea of the number of people available in Kent who have the necessary skills to match the requirements of the developers.

Mr. Gale: A few moments ago my hon. Friend appeared to announce something that will be news to some of us. He said that the moment the tunnel opens, the boat


train from Victoria will be cancelled. If that is correct, it is another demonstration of the job losses that will occur at the Channel ports. It confirms the grave fears of some of us from east Kent about the effect on the Channel ports.

Mr. Mitchell: It is one of the factors that have always been recognised and taken into account in British Rail's expectations. There is no point in running a train to meet a boat if it takes two hours longer to do that than it would to travel through the tunnel. My hon. Friend cannot be serious if he assumes that one can run empty trains down to the boats and full trains through the tunnel. No one will wish to go by train and take 2½ hours longer to complete the journey.

Mr. Gale: My hon. Friend is implying, not that nobody will want to travel by train and then by boat, but that nobody other than those in cars will want to go by boat. That is what most of us from east Kent have argued.

Mr. Mitchell: I am not in any way suggesting that British Rail will cut Dover or Folkestone from the railway network. There will not be sufficient traffic to warrant, as at present, sending trains direct to particular scheduled boat services. That is understandable, and has been understood throughout our discussions. If it comes as a surprise to my hon. Friend, I am prepared to consider that shock to his system.

Mr. Gale: It is no surprise, but it is confirmation of what we have been saying, which is that the Minister now recognises the devastating effect that the tunnel will have on the Channel ferries. That is on record as of now.

Mr. Mitchell: If my hon. Friend considers the matter carefully when he reads Hansard tomorrow, he will find that what I said is not particularly surprising.

Mr. Forth: Will my hon. Friend clarify a reference that he made to the time difference between a boat and the proposed tunnel crossing? Will he confirm that the record for a ferry crossing is about 57 minutes and that the new generation of ferries being developed will provide a faster, more efficient service? What is the real time difference in transit between a ferry and the proposed rail link? My hon. Friend may inadvertently have given the House the wrong impression.

Mr. Mitchell: I am not an expert on the precise timing of the ferry services. I understand that hovercraft take about three quarters of an hour, and that going by ship is considerably longer. Only the speed of hovercraft is remotely similar to that of travel through the proposed tunnel.

Mr. Rowe: My hon. Friend pointed out that the joint consultative committee has begun to consider the employment needs for the next seven years. He will be aware that Kent county council feels strongly that the joint consultative committee should remain in being until the tunnel opens because of the need to take account of planning. Does my hon. Friend intend to keep the committee in being in its present form, or in some modified form, until the tunnel opens?

Mr. Mitchell: It is for the members of the committee who are elected representatives of that part of Kent to conclude whether the committee's work needs to continue. I do not envisage continuing for as long as "The Mousetrap" has remained a regular show in the West End, but during the formative period I expect that we shall

continue to have regular meetings, and then less frequent meetings to review progress and to ensure that the project is proceeding along the lines anticipated.
It may help the House if I indicate the range of subjects which the joint consultative committee is discussing at its meetings. The agenda of the last meeting covered matters arising from the previous meeting, the impact study that is being undertaken, the construction——

Mr. Aitken: I am thrilled to hear the Minister disclose details from the Dispatch Box about the committee's work. The committee, which the Minister cracks up to be a great event in terms of public information and consultation, is seen by the people of Kent as a secret committee from which the public and press are banned and to which Members of Parliament are not allowed to go. I accept that there is a circulation list for the minutes, but that is not equivalent to the free and open consultation and public communication that would reassure the people of Kent. I hope that the Minister will change the committee's ground rules.

Mr. Mitchell: It is for the members of the committee to decide whether to conduct their proceedings in the full glare of publicity or to act as a businesslike group, taking decisions and then fully explaining in the minutes that are circulated those decisions and why they have been reached. My hon. Friend implies that there is great secrecy about this committee. Once the minutes are sent to his council, it is not long before they reach him and other parties in the area, including the newspapers.

Sir John Farr: The Minister said that it was for the committee to decide how to proceed and whether to make its activities public. Would that include deciding, say, to allow the meetings to be open to the public, with the media, including radio and TV present, so that the public are kept fully informed of what is happening in what will prove to be an important PR exercise?

Mr. Mitchell: The purpose of this committee is not a PR exercise. It is to identify and seek solutions to problems in Kent. The Committee's next meeting, on 16 June, will be in public and will receive presentations from a series of groups in Kent whose members feel affected by the project, and we shall take account of the effect of having the press present at that meeting. I have no doubt that if the committee feels that it wants to change its way of working, it will do so.

Mr. Simon Hughes: rose——

Hon. Members: The hon. Gentleman has woken up.

Mr. Hughes: I have not been asleep. I have been keeping a watching brief. Will the committee complete its work in time to be of use to the petitioners? When dealing with the previous Channel Tunnel Bill, the Kent impact study was completed several months before the matter went to the Select Committee. Will the committee produce the results of its economic and social studies—by, say, the production of an interim report—this month or by the beginning of July so that the benefits of its work, so far in secret, are made available to petitioners, rather than being produced several months after the closing date for petitioners to make their concerns known to the Select Committee?

Mr. Mitchell: I am sorry that the hon. Gentleman was asleep when I explained that the proceedings of the


committee were not secret and that its minutes were sent to local authorities and the press. Indeed, I sought to spare the hon. Gentleman any embarrassment when he was snoring. I did not want to give way to him on the assumption that he wished to intervene. The hon. Gentleman asked when the committee would complete its work — [Interruption.] It is difficult to address the House when two Opposition Members are carrying on a conversation. If they want me to give way, I shall happily do so. If they do not, perhaps they will allow me to complete what I have to say.
The hon. Member for Southwark and Bermondsey (Mr. Hughes) asked whether the committee would complete its work by the summer. Earlier, my hon. Friend the Member for Mid-Kent (Mr. Rowe) asked whether the committee would continue to 1993. I told my hon. Friend that it was not the intention that the committee should complete its work hurriedly, that the work would go on, with the intensity of meetings determined by what the members of the committee felt was suitable as matters proceeded. Obviously, at the present formative stage, a great deal of work is being done and a great many studies are under way. Later on there will be more monitoring of the effect of the arrangements that have been agreed by the committee.
The impact study is being conducted in two parts. In the first part, we anticipate that a report will be before the committee at its next meeting. I hope that it will be approved then, but that is up to the members of the committee. [Interruption.] If Opposition Members cannot restrain themselves, is there any way in which I can either give way to them or get them to shut up, Mr. Deputy Speaker? The hon. Member for Southwark and Bermondsey has raised a serious point and I am trying to give him a serious answer. There will be two stages in the impact study. The first one in the summer will be considered at the next meeting of the committee, and the next one will require consultants to be brought in and will take a considerably longer time to achieve its results. The fuller report will look at the long-term implications of the tunnel on Kent. The short-term one will be more concerned with the effects of construction and things of that sort, for which a great deal of information is already available.

Mr. Simon Hughes: I should like to ask a supplementary question about the interim report. If that report is agreed by the committee this month, will the Minister assure us that he and his offcials will raise no objection to its being released so that the material can be made available to petitioners in time for them to make use of it during the period of petition?

Mr. Mitchell: That is a perfectly reasonable suggestion, and I shall put it to the committee. I chair the committee. I do not dictate to it.

Mr. Franks: A few minutes ago my hon. Friend said that the committee had two options. If I remember his words, the options were that the committee could either conduct its business in the full glare of publicity, or, it could conduct its business in a businesslike way. Am Ito understand from that that the two are mutually exclusive?

Mr. Mitchell: I think that my hon. Friend has had experience in his own business life of meetings that are

more effective if they are conducted in private than if they are conducted in public. Most companies have boards, and my hon. Friend may sit on some company boards. It might generally, be felt that a board would not as effectively conduct its business in public as it would in private. Minutes of board meetings may well be circulated afterwards. The same thing is true of trade unions. Trade union meetings are not held in public, although what is agreed at meetings may well be circulated afterwards.

Sir John Farr: The motion says that the Committee will have the power to adjourn from place to place within the United Kingdom. Is my hon. Friend able to confirm reports that those places will include some of the ports? If the Committee's aim is to have more than one meeting in Dover, would it be possible for its proceedings to be heard on local radio?

Mr. Mitchell: I was referring to the joint consultative committee in Kent. My hon. Friend has asked me a question about where the Select Committee will hold its meetings. That is entirely a matter for the Select Committee. If members will decide where such meetings are to be held. If the Committee considered that it was appropriate to hold meetings in Kent—and I should not be at all surprised if it did—that would be a matter for it, not for the Government. We shall do nothing to prevent such meetings or to discourage the Committee from holding meetings.

Sir John Farr: I am most grateful to my hon. Friend. It is an important point, which I know has been raised before. He is saying, therefore, that there would be nothing to prevent the Select Committee, if its members thought fit, from going to Dover to hold a meeting, or a series of meetings, and that they could ask the local television and radio stations to transmit the proceedings live?

Mr. Mitchell: I do not think that I dare to trespass into the area of whether the Select Committee would have the power to invite local television into its proceedings, any more than television could be invited to transmit the activities of this House without the House having formed its judgment on the matter.

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Sir Paul Dean): I am pleased to hear the Minister say that, because one part of the committal motion with which we shall deal later deals specifically with the powers of the Select Committee.

Mr. Aitken: To return to the point that was raised by my hon. Friend the Member for Barrow and Furness (Mr. Franks) and my hon. Friend the Minister of State's reply to him, the Minister used the analogy of the boardroom and said that more business like meetings could take place in private. May I suggest to my hon. Friend that he is making an error of judgment when he equates the proceedings of what is popularly known as the Mitchell committee with the proceedings of the board room, because once again he is identifying the interests of the Eurotunnel consortium with the interests of the Government. The interests of the Eurotunnel consortium and the interests of the public are two different things.
The best course that the Mitchell committee can adopt to redeem its reputation as an excessively secretive set-up — which is how it is perceived in Kent, whether my hon. Friend likes to admit it or not—is at least to say that part of the committee's proceedings should be held in


private and part in public, instead of continuing with the present closed shop attitude that the press, the public, Members of Parliament and others should be completely excluded, apart from having access to what are now turning out to be, effectively, doctored minutes. In terms of public presentation, that is unacceptable.

Mr. Mitchell: I have to take issue with my hon. Friend's reference to "doctored minutes". That is not the way in which the committee will proceed. Certainly it is not the way in which the elected representatives in my hon. Friends local authority or in the other local authorities in Kent would allow matters to proceed. I hope that after consideration my hon. Friend will withdraw that remark.

Mr. Cash: I am a little mystified by the recent exchange. I hope that I did not hear my hon. Friend the Minister say that these proceedings will be held in private, because it is axiomatic with regad to private Bill matters that the proceedings should be held in public. I should be very surprised to hear anything to the contrary.

Mr. Mitchell: My hon. Friend is under a misapprehension. Two separate matters are being discussed. The first is the question of a joint consultative committee, which has been meeting in Kent. It consists of representatives of local authorities in Kent, the Department of the Environment, the Department of Transport, the promoters and British Rail. We have been discussing whether that committee should meet in public or in private. It is entirely for the Select Committee to make its own arrangements about its proceedings.

Mr. Franks: May I take my hon. Friend back to his answer to my earlier question, when he drew a parallel between the possibility of the committee sitting in private and boards of private or public companies or trade union branches meeting in private? There is fundamental difference between the two. A board meeting, or a meeting of a trade union or similar organisation, is essentially a meeting of a private organisation, which is perfectly entitled to meet in private. The committee is considering public business and, therefore, should meet in public.

Mr. Mitchell: Of course that is true of the Select Committee. I am not discussing that. We are talking about what the representatives of local authorities in Kent decide is the most effective way in which to conduct their proceedings.

Mr. Franks: Local authorities are public authorities. They represent the public. Therefore, those meetings should be held in public.

Mr. Mitchell: That is a matter for the elected representatives in that area to decide. I have not sought to dictate to them.

Mr. Simon Hughes: As a result of the local elections in May, the Liberal party became the minority administration in Maidstone, which was the first change from a completely Conservative-controlled set of local authorities. In presentation terms the problem was greater when all the councils were controlled by the same party. Is there now more than one-party representation on the committee? That at least might make it more likely for information to come into the public domain.

Mr. Mitchell: There are no party representatives as such on the committee. It consists of the leaders or chairmen of councils, together with the chief executives.

I have no detailed knowledge of their politics, and it is not my area of responsibility. It is for the district councils to decide whom they choose to represent them. There are two representatives from each council — one an elected representative, normally the leader or chairman, and the other his chief executive. At official level, the chief executives act as a working group between the meetings of the committee. That is a reasonable and effective way in which to conduct business.

Mr. Franks: I am sorry to pursue this point, but I remind the Minister that, last Session, Parliament passed the Local Government (Access to Information) Act 1985. Meetings that directly affect local authorities should be held in public.

Mr. Mitchell: My hon. Friend has a special interest in the matter, and I note what he says. I have no doubt that members of the committee will note it, too. It is not for me to dictate to them how we should conduct our proceedings. Nevertheless, I shall keep in mind the points that my hon. Friend made.

Mr. Aitken: My hon. Friend will recall that I asked whether a Member of Parliament could attend the committee's meetings, and he said that that would be unacceptable. Was that a decision of the committee and, if so, was it recorded? If not, is it a clear policy that local Members of Parliament are excluded from the committee? What is the history of the decision to exclude Members of Parliament from the committee?

Mr. Mitchell: If my recollection serves me right, my hon. Friend asked me whether I believed that he would be an appropriate person to attend the committee as an additional observer. I do not remember the exact circumstances. I did not put it to the committee. He asked me for an opinion, and I gave him one.
The committee is made up of representatives from the local authorities and from the Kent county council. My hon. Friend is not the elected representative of his local authority. If he is so elected, of course he will be entitled to attend, and, it would be right and proper that he should do so.

Mr. Aitken: Can Members of Parliament go to the committee or not?

Mr. Mitchell: The Committee has been made up from the county council, district council, Department of the Environment, British Rail and the promoters, and my hon. Friend does not fall into any of those categories. What we have sought to do is to get elected local representatives and, in this context, they are the district councils there represented. That has beer well accepted in Kent as a reasonable way of proceeding.

Mr. Aitken: By whom? Who has accepted it?

Mr. Mitchell: By the councils concerned.

Mr. Aitken: My hon. Friend is running into very heavy weather here. This simply is not right. I should like to know this not on behalf of myself but on behalf of any Kent Member of Parliament who wishes to attend the consultative committee. The understanding at present is that they are not welcome at the committee. What is the precise position? If it is unclear, as it appears to be, may we please have it put to the committee in a simple request? If a Member of Parliament wishes to attend any meeting


of the committee, is he to be excluded, which appears to be the present position, or is he to be welcomed as an observer and contributor to the discussions?

Mr. Mitchell: No such request has been made to the committee. It is, therefore, impossible for me to give an answer to my hon. Friend now in the form in which he asks for it. My hon. Friend will know that every Member representing a Kent constituency has had access to me at any time that he has wished to discuss matters. I have gone out of my way to issue invitations and enable Members who represent Kent to ensure that any items that they want to be put on the agenda are put on. My hon. Friend is, if I may say so, being a little unfair.
I was trying to explain to the House the sort of things that the committee has been considering. I was asked about the impact study, the construction employment, who will be employed, what skills are required and whether those skills are available. At the next meeting the Department of Employment will have a report from the Manpower Services Commission on what skills are available to fill the requirements of the developers in terms of construction employment. My hon. Friends the Members for Thanet, North (Mr. Gale) and for Thanet, South (Mr. Aitken), who are deeply concerned about unemployment, will be interested to know that we are seeking to discover whether in their constituencies there are people with the required skills who would wish to take up the employment opportunities.
As to environmentally sensitive issues a range of these was discussed at the last meeting—electricity supplies, whether the cable should be overhead or underground, the Dollands Moor site and things of that kind.
With regard to spoil disposal, we had 65 different propositions on where the spoil might be dumped. There is a problem with the spoil because some has salt on it, and we do not know the extent of that. This puts a limit on where one can dump the spoil. If it has salt in it, it will turn the water table briny, which will not be acceptable to the local water authorities or residents.
There is a paper from British Rail about the train tunnels on the route between Folkestone and Dover. We discussed the arrangements for the public presentation of the different local groups, about which I spoke earlier, road infrastructure and compensation arrangements. I give that list to the House so that hon. Members may have an idea of the range of work that the local committee is doing. I hope it will be felt that that is a useful way of proceeding.
I was dealing with the point raised by my hon. Friend the Member for Sevenoaks. He wondered whether it would be right for people to serve on the committee who represented other areas in which employment might be provided. We estimate that £700 million worth of orders for industry will be placed by the Channel Tunnel Group away from the construction. In addition, £200 million worth of orders will be provided by British Rail. That will mean a substantial amount of work and jobs.
The hon. Member for Warley, East (Mr. Faulds) is not here; at the moment his place is occupied by my hon. Friend the Member for South Ribble (Mr. Atkins). The hon. Member for Warley, East is well known for appearing on the stage in different guises; I am not sure whether he is putting on a new act for us now. He suggested that few jobs would be created away from Kent.

He is entirely wrong. A substantial number of jobs will be created elsewhere in the manufacture of the shuttle trains to go through the tunnel and the British Rail rolling stock.

Mr. Robert Atkins: On behalf of the hon. Member for Warley, East (Mr. Faulds), may I thank the Minister for that most interesting information?

Mr. Mitchell: The hon. Member for Warley, East claimed that there would be a jobs benefit only during construction. As I said to the deputy Member for Warley, East, that is entirely wrong. There will be additional jobs during construction, but once the tunnel is open it will have a profound impact on industry in the north, in the midlands, in Scotland, in the north-east and on Merseyside. Manufacturers in those parts of the country will be able to get their goods into the markets of Europe more cheaply, more efficiently, more quickly and more reliably. Therefore, they will be able to compete more successfully. Successful competition is the key to employment in those areas.
The hon. Member for Warley, East also expressed concern about rabies and referred to pets being asleep on trains. The danger with rabies arises not from people bring pets over on ferries or trains but from people bringing pets over on small boats to our marinas and letting them off on shore. That is a more widespread problem.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. The Minister is dealing in detail with points that were raised during the Second Reading debate. I hope that he will not make more than a passing reference to a debate that we have already disposed of.

Mr. Mitchell: I assure you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, that I am dealing not with matters raised on Second Reading but with matters that were raised during this debate. I have a separate set of notes on the points that hon. Members have raised.
The hon. Member for Southwark and Bermondsey sought to make a case for a larger Committee to ensure that those serving on it adequately represented all groups in the House. My understanding is that the normal number serving on such a Committee would be eight, but the proposition on the Order Paper is for nine, which is to take account of the point that he has raised. I hope that he thinks that satisfactory. The House likes to move by precedent, and the advantage of that is that people have some indication of where they stand.

Mr. Simon Hughes: I think that the Minister will accept the point made by the hon. Member for Tiverton (Mr. Maxwell-Hyslop) that both in procedure and in the nature of the Bill there is no precedent because of the importance commercially and from other aspects of the prosposition in the Bill. There is, therefore, a demand from both sides of the House that it is not only the precedent that is considered but the importance of the task before us.

Mr. Mitchell: I do not dispute that, but I think that in terms of the task it is better to have a smaller rather than a larger Committee.
My hon. Friend the Member for Harborough (Sir J. Farr) has sat throughout today's debates with great patience, and he caught the eye of Mr. Deputy Speaker earlier this morning. He wanted to know why we did not choose a road-rail mixed tunnel as was originally proposed


by the Sea Containers Group. He suggested that members of the Committee should have the expertise to call for papers and to consider that question.
The original format proposed by the Sea Containers Group—Jim Sherwood's company — had a touch of genius about it: one tunnel each way to carry both drive through vehicles and the railway line. There were many advantages to that—there would be only two tunnels to bore with a small narrow service tunnel between instead of four tunnels. The investment would have been more financially rewarding. In addition, the soil dispersal problem would have been considerably less. However, when we examined the proposal in the railway safety inspectorate we could not accept it as a safe way to proceed. I could detain the House by going into the precise details of why the inspectorate did not judge it to be safe, but I think that at this hour the House would not wish me to do so.

Sir John Farr: Do my hon. Friend's advisers feel that it will ever be possible, if we go ahead with the planned tunnel, for a road link to be attached to or run in tandem with it?

Mr. Mitchell: We did not consider it safe to have a railway running through the same tunnel as road vehicles, with a wide space beside the train and nothing to stop it spreading sideways if there was a derailment. I cannot speak for what might be done in future, but it was the fact that the rail track would have run level with the road that created the dangers that the inspectorate found unacceptable.
My hon. Friend also asked about defence expertise, shipping, ferries and the reinforcement of NATO. It would obviously he much cheaper to mothball some vessels than not to proceed with the tunnel if we are concerned simply with the question of military reinforcements for NATO. He also asked about sabotage. I am not at all sure that there are in the House potential members of the Select Committee who would have knowledge and expertise about sabotage.

Mr. Lawrence: I am not volunteering to be available, but on this question of availability, can my hon. Friend the Minister tell the House whether the Special Standing Committee is expected to sit right through the summer recess?

Mr. Mitchell: That is a matter for the Select Committee to decide. There is, I understand, nothing to prevent the Committee from sitting during the recess if it wishes. However, the Committee members might not choose to sit in the recess. That would be a matter for the Committee members.

Mr. Douglas Hogg: What will happen if the Select Committee reports to the House that it is unable to complete in a reasonable time its business of listening to the petitions? What effect would that have on the progress of the substantive Bill?

Mr. Mitchell: I am not in a position to answer my hon. Friend's point, as we do not know how many petitions there will be or how the Committee will wish to proceed with its handling of the petitions. We do not know whether the petitions will be grouped together. I am sorry to tell my hon. Friend that this matter will unfold in due course.

Mr. Simon Hughes: Can the Minister revise the estimate of time that he believes that the Select Committee

will need to consider the petitions? He will be aware that in the report of the Standing Orders Committee an appendix was produced which laid out the possible timetable. This set out a six-week period for the Select Committee proceedings. It was estimated to finish on 24 July. Can the Minister now confirm that it is more likely that the Select Committee, whatever timetable it agrees, will take much longer than six weeks? Is he aware that his Department's advice means that it is inevitable that the Committee will need to continue its work at the end of the summer recess and will not be able to complete it before then?

Mr. Mitchell: The hon. Gentleman may be correct in suggesting that the Committee may not conclude its deliberations before the summer recess. I would not be in the least bit surprised by that. However, that is a matter for the Committee, and until the number and groups of petitions are known it is not possible to give a realistic answer to the hon. Gentleman. I would not like to mislead the hon. Gentleman.
The House has had a substantial debate on this matter. Hon. Members have raised many points, but the hour is late and I think that we should make progress. I can tell my hon. Friend the Member for Derbyshire, South (Mrs. Currie), who is stalwartly fighting for her constituents who work at British Rail Engineering Ltd. which has two major works in Derby, that the scale of potential orders is substantial. I shall not detain the House by spelling out the extent of the orders.
I was glad to find myself in agreement with my hon. Friend the Member for Thanet, South on at least one occasion. He suggested that there was a possibility that he would be precluded from sitting on the Select Committee because he might be considered to be an interested party. I think that he and I find ourselves in full agreement on that.

Mr. Aitken: I do not wish to make a Sherman-style declaration "If nominated, I will not serve", or whatever that declaration was. However, should by any chance the call come, I am more than willing—I may be the only hon. Member who is willing—loyally to do my duty on behalf of the House.

Mr. Mitchell: My hon. Friend the Member for Mid-Kent made a number of very important points. I hope that he will forgive me if I write to him about them as I am anxious to speed up the proceedings.
The Government see no reason or justification for increasing the number of members of the Select Committee from nine to 11. The usual number for a hybrid Bill Committee is eight or nine. For the 1974 Channel Tunnel Bill the Select Committee was eight. The Government oppose any needless increase in the numbers involved in the proceedings of the Select Committee. Therefore, I suggest that the House would be wise to accept the motion as it stands on the Order Paper and to reject the amendments. Accordingly, I invite the House to do so.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: I remind the House of the procedure. We are dealing first with amendment (a). Does any hon. Member wish formally to move amendment (a)?

Amendment (a) proposed, in line 2, leave out 'nine' and insert 'eleven'.—[Mr. Douglas Hogg.]

Question put, That the amendment be made:—

The House divided: Ayes 9, Noes 176.

Division No. 208]
[4.35 am


AYES


Aitken, Jonathan
Walker, Bill (T'slde N)


Alton, David
Wallace, James


Ashdown, Paddy



Farr, Sir John
Tellers for the Ayes:


Gale, Roger
Mr. Michael Brown and


Hughes, Simon (Southwark)
Mr. Douglas Hogg.


Skinner, Dennis





NOES


Alexander, Richard
Hayward, Robert


Amess, David
Heathcoat-Amory, David


Arnold, Tom
Hickmet, Richard


Ashby, David
Holt, Richard


Atkins, Robert (South Ribble)
Howard, Michael


Atkinson, David (B'm'th E)
Howarth, Gerald (Cannock)


Baker, Nicholas (Dorset N)
Hubbard-Miles, Peter


Baldry, Tony
Hunt, David (Wirral W)


Batiste, Spencer
Hunter, Andrew


Bendall, Vivian
Jackson, Robert


Best, Keith
Jenkin, Rt Hon Patrick


Biffen, Rt Hon John
Jones, Gwilym (Cardiff N)


Biggs-Davison, Sir John
Jones, Robert (Herts W)


Blackburn, John
Jopling, Rt Hon Michael


Blaker, Rt Hon Sir Peter
Kellett-Bowman, Mrs Elaine


Bonsor, Sir Nicholas
King, Roger (B'ham N'field)


Boscawen, Hon Robert
Knight, Greg (Derby N)


Bottomley, Peter
Knowles, Michael


Bottomley, Mrs Virginia
Lamont, Norman


Bowden, A. (Brighton K'to'n)
Lang, Ian


Bowden, Gerald (Dulwich)
Lawler, Geoffrey


Boyson, Dr Rhodes
Lawrence, Ivan


Brandon-Bravo, Martin
Lee, John (Pendle)


Bright, Graham
Leigh, Edward (Gainsbor'gh)


Brittan, Rt Hon Leon
Lennox-Boyd, Hon Mark


Brooke, Hon Peter
Lilley, Peter


Bruinvels, Peter
Lloyd, Peter (Fareham)


Buchanan-Smith, Rt Hon A.
Lord, Michael


Bulmer, Esmond
Luce, Rt Hon Richard


Burt, Alistair
Lyell, Nicholas


Butler, Rt Hon Sir Adam
McCurley, Mrs Anna


Butterfill, John
Macfarlane, Neil


Carlisle, Kenneth (Lincoln)
MacKay, Andrew (Berkshire)


Cash, William
McLoughlin, Patrick


Chope, Christopher
Major, John


Clark, Dr Michael (Rochford)
Malins, Humfrey


Colvin, Michael
Malone, Gerald


Conway, Derek
Maples, John


Coombs, Simon
Marlow, Antony


Cope, John
Mates, Michael


Cranborne, Viscount
Mather, Carol


Crouch, David
Maude, Hon Francis


Currie, Mrs Edwina
Maxwell-Hyslop, Robin


Dorrell, Stephen
Mayhew, Sir Patrick


Dunn, Robert
Mellor, David


Durant, Tony
Meyer, Sir Anthony


Eggar, Tim
Mitchell, David (Hants NW)


Favell, Anthony
Moore, Rt Hon John


Fenner, Mrs Peggy
Moynihan, Hon C.


Forsyth, Michael (Stirling)
Neale, Gerrard


Forth, Eric
Nicholls, Patrick


Fox, Marcus
Norris, Steven


Franks, Cecil
Onslow, Cranley


Fraser, Peter (Angus East)
Osborn, Sir John


Freeman, Roger
Page, Richard (Herts SW)


Galley, Roy
Patten, Christopher (Bath)


Garel-Jones, Tristan
Patten, J. (Oxf W &amp; Abgdn)


Glyn, Dr Alan
Pattie, Geoffrey


Gower, Sir Raymond
Pawsey, James


Gregory, Conal
Pollock, Alexander


Ground, Patrick
Portillo, Michael


Hamilton, Hon A. (Epsom)
Powell, William (Corby)


Hamilton, Neil (Tatton)
Powley, John


Hanley, Jeremy
Rathbone, Tim


Hargreaves, Kenneth
Renton, Tim


Harris, David
Rhys Williams, Sir Brandon


Hawksley, Warren
Ridsdale, Sir Julian


Hayes, J.
Roberts, Wyn (Conwy)





Robinson, Mark (N'port W)
Thomas, Rt Hon Peter


Roe, Mrs Marion
Thompson, Donald (Calder V)


Rowe, Andrew
Thompson, Patrick (N'ich N)


Rumbold, Mrs Angela
Thurnham, Peter


Ryder, Richard
Townsend, Cyril D. (B'heath)


Sackville, Hon Thomas
Tracey, Richard


Sainsbury, Hon Timothy
Twinn, Dr Ian


Sayeed, Jonathan
Waddington, David


Scott, Nicholas
Wakeham, Rt Hon John


Shaw, Sir Michael (Scarb')
Waller, Gary


Shepherd, Colin (Hereford)
Wardle, C. (Bexhill)


Sims, Roger
Warren, Kenneth


Smith, Tim (Beaconsfield)
Watson, John


Soames, Hon Nicholas
Whitney, Raymond


Spencer, Derek
Wolfson, Mark


Spicer, Jim (Dorset W)
Wood, Timothy


Spicer, Michael (S Worcs)
Yeo, Tim


Stern, Michael
Young, Sir George (Acton)


Stevens, Lewis (Nuneaton)



Stewart, Ian (Hertf'dshire N)
Tellers for the Noes:


Sumberg, David
Mr. Malcolm Thornton and


Taylor, John (Solihull)
Mr. Kenneth Hind.

Question accordingly negatived.

Main Question put:-

The House proceeded to a Division—

MR. PETER LLOYD and MR. MAUDE were appointed Tellers for the Ayes but no Member being willing to act as Teller for the Noes, MR. DEPUTY SPEAKER declared that the Ayes had it.

Main Question agreed to.

Mr. David Mitchell: I beg to move,
That there shall stand referred to the Select Committee—

(a) any Petition against the Bill presented by being deposited in the Private Bill Office at any time not later than 17th June, and
(b) any Petition which has been presented by being deposited in the Private Bill Office and in which the Petitioners complain of any amendment as proposed in any Petition against the Bill or in the filled-up Bill or of any matter which has arisen during the progress of the Bill before the said Committee,

being a Petition in which the Petitioners pray to be heard by themselves, their Counsel or Agents.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: With this it will be convenient to debate amendments (c), (d), (e) and (f).

Mr. Mitchell: The House has already decided that the Select Committee should comprise nine members rather than 11, and it has also decided that all Committee members should be nominated by the Committee of Selection. The purpose of lines four to 12 of the motion is to refer to the Select Committee thus established two kinds of petition.
The first kind of petition is dealt with in paragraph (a). They are petitions against the Bill. Any petition against the Bill is referred to the Committee, provided that it is presented by the 17 June in the Private Bill Office in the usual way. This date is eight weeks and four days after 18 April, the date on which notices were issued in national and local papers.
For the Channel Tunnel Bill 1973 the interval was exactly eight weeks, including Christmas. The average interval for hybrid Bills in the past 30 years has been six weeks. For private Bills, Standing Orders lay down a standard interval of eight weeks, from 4 December to 30 January, which also includes Christmas. Therefore, I am sure the House will realise that the Government have given slightly more time than is necessary under the normal procedure.
The second kind of petition, which is dealt with in paragraph (b), is a petition complaining against alteration of the Bill or indeed of any of the matters that have arisen during the progress of the Bill before the Committee. This sort of petition is subject to no closing date.
The final line refers to petitions in which petitioners pray to be heard by themselves, their counsel or their agents, and it refers also to the provisions in lines 17 to 18 in the next paragraph, which has not yet been discussed.
That is all that I have to say at this stage. I shall be happy to listen to the debate and to advise the House on some of the amendments at a later stage.

Mr. Franks: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. May I raise a point of order of which I have given you prior notice, namely, the possible breach of privilege and contempt of the House by the hon. Member for Linlithgow (Mr. Dalyell).
Before the commencement of the debate on the committal motion, the hon. Member for Walsall, North (Mr. Winnick) made the point in a point of order that my hon. Friend the Member for Lancashire, West (Mr. Hind) was allegedly seeking to organise a filibuster, and as a consequence the hon. Member for Linlithgow would miss the opportunity to speak to the motion in his name at 9.30 am. I believe that if the hon. Member for Walsall, North had stayed to listen to the debate it would have been crystal clear to him that it has been a genuine debate.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. What is the hon. Member's point of order?

Mr. Franks: The point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker, relates to my understanding that the hon. Member for Linlithgow—I declare that I have the second motion for debate tomorrow—has booked a room in the House for 9.30 am. If what I am told is correct, he intends to make to the media the speech that he could and would have made to the House of Commons. If that is the case, it must surely be a contempt of the House that a speech that should be made to the House, and could possibly still be made, will be made to the media rather than to hon. Members.
I would ask you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, whether inquiries could be made of the hon. Member to ascertain whether what I have been reliably informed of is correct, and, if it is correct, whether the question of contempt could be considered.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: It seems clear from what the hon. Member has said that he is referring to a private meeting in the House, which has nothing to do with the Chair.

Mr. Franks: Further to that point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. Should these proceedings terminate in time for the hon. Member for Linlithgow to make a speech at 9.30 am——

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. The hon. Member has raised this matter before and he has already had an answer from the Chair. We cannot deal now with hypothetical questions. We really must get on with the business before us. Did the Minister give way to the hon. Member? I am not quite sure.

Mr. Mitchell: I had finished what I was saying when the point of order was raised.

Mr. Simon Hughes: I seek leave to move amendment (c).

Mr. Deputy Speaker: I remind the hon. Member and the House—I know that the procedure is not familiar to the House—that he does not move the amendment at this stage. It is perfectly in order for him to speak to the amendment or to any other amendments which have been selected.

Mr. Hughes: I apologise, Mr. Deputy Speaker. Since the instruction was given six or so hours ago, I had forgotten the specific procedure.
I wish to speak to the four amendments, especially the amendment standing in the name of my right hon. and hon. Friends and others and myself. The four amendments relating to the time for petitioning are in descending order. The House will be aware that, the Second Reading having been granted by the House today in parliamentary terms but yesterday in chronological terms—5 June—the date that stands on the Order Paper for the end of the period for petitioners to present their petitions is 17 June—a period of 12 days. That is the Government's proposal. It is commonly understood that that is an insufficient period given the number of interested people who wish to present petitions and who can formally do so only in the 12 days that are set down.
My right hon. and hon. Friends and myself tabled an amendment proposing that the period for petitioning should be eight weeks from 5 June and should therefore end on 31 July. There are other options by way of amendment on the Order Paper. There is an amendment in the name of the Leader of the Opposition and others that the date for petitioning should be extended to 17 July. There is an amendment in the name of the right hon. and learned Member for Richmond, Yorks (Mr. Brittan) and others that the time for petitioning should be extended until 27 June. There is a subsidiary amendment, also in the name of the right hon. and learned Member for Richmond, Yorks and others, which would permit, in certain circumstances, petitions to be presented after 27 June. That amendment, which has to be taken with the previous amendment, relates to different sorts of petitions.
The House has been presented with a range of options which put eight weeks as the maximum period for petitioning, and that is the position which my right hon. and hon. Friends have taken. If all the amendments failed, petitioners would have only 12 days in which to make their case. The Minister said in his reply that he would look favourably on the option presented by way of amendment by the right hon. and learned Member for Richmond, Yorks and others which appeared, if I recollect correctly, to find general favour, among those Kentish Members who spoke, as a better option than the present deadline of 17 June. I make it clear that any extension is better than none. However, I make a serious case to the Minister in favour of the option of the last available date — 31 July. He undertook to listen carefully to the reasons for that, and no doubt he will do so now.
As has generally been accepted—often the House looks for guidance on procedural matters to the hon. Member for Tiverton (Mr. Maxwell-Hyslop), who made points on the subject earlier—there is no precedent for the Bill and its procedures which is ideal and which can be sited precisely and exactly. There are precedents that


are relevant, but because this is a hybrid Bill as opposed to a private Bill, although more private than public, as was said on Wednesday night, we cannot look specifically to the procedure for private Bills. You will be aware, Mr. Deputy Speaker, that, had it been a private Bill, presentation wuld have had to take place by 27 November. It was the Government's option that they decided to introduce the Bill to the House only some seven months after that, on 17 April. They had to seek permission of the House, by way of the Standing Orders Committee, to have dispensation from the normal timetable.
The House will remember that that Committee announced in its report in May that it could make no recommendation to the House. That led to the matter coming back to the House this week, when the House agreed after an important and strongly argued debate that the Standing Orders should be dispensed with and that there should be the possibility of a shorter period being provided given the late introduction of the Bill by the Government.
That means that there has already been a breach of the normal procedures. I am not saying that that is without precedent because it is clear that such a precedent exists, but the procedures that are laid down have not been followed and there has already been a shortening of the procedures that would have been expected.

Mr. David Mitchell: Is the hon. Gentleman saying that anyone will have less time than he would have under the normal procedure?

Mr. Hughes: I shall deal with that by taking matters chronologically.

Mr. Gale: As the hon. Gentleman will have gathered from the fact that I signed an amendment not dissimilar from the one which stands in his name and that of his colleagues, I have a great deal of sympathy with what he is saying. The hon. Gentleman has referred to the motion that was carried on Tuesday night and has said that at present petitioners will have 12 days in which to lodge their petitions. I think that he will recall that I raised that issue on Tuesday evening, when my hon. Friend the Minister of State offered to clarify the position in writing. On Tuesday we carried the following:
That in the event of the Bill being read a second time, the earliest date which, in any motion for the committal of the Bill to a Select Committee, may be specified as the date by which a Petition against the Bill must be presented in order to stand referred to the Committee shall be 17th June.
That is the earliest date. The motion before us reads:
(a) any petition against the Bill presented by being deposited in the Private Bill Office at any time not later than 17th June".
As I said on Tuesday, that is not 12 days; it is only one day.

Mr. Hughes: I remember the intervention that the hon. Member for Thanet, North (Mr. Gale) made on Tuesday. He has a valid argument because the two motions do not say the same thing. The motion that was carried said that 17 June shall be the last date and the motion before us, if unamended, provides that the first date would be the last date. That is clearly ludicrous. I think that the hon. Gentleman will agree that, Second Reading having been given to the Bill on 5 June, petitioners are alerted to the fact that they have 12 days to 17 June, but, if the motion is agreed to and not amended, petitioners will be alerted

to the fact that 12 days is the maximum period available to them. This means that technically there is only one day for the lodging of petitions. That would present difficulties procedurally, let alone substantive difficulties, for those who had to get their tackle in order.
It was probably for that reason more than others that the Minister accepted implicity and not explicity — as I recollect, he did not refer explicity to the question asked by the hon. Member for Thanet, North—that he would look favourably on a amendment which would open the period, but such an amendment would open it by only another 10 days. That is unsatisfactory given precedent and unsatisfactory given the important and substantial number of people who wish to present petitions, but who are not yet clear about the procedural rules for so doing.

Mr. Cash: The hon. Gentleman may have been asleep when the Minister was giving an accurate description of what has been going on over the past few months in communicating with potential petitioners. It ought to be on record, now that the hon. Member for Southwark and Bermondsey (Mr. Hughes) is awake and with us again, that the Government have taken considerable steps to make sure that people are fully aware of their rights. They ought to be congratulated rather than subject to the carping criticism which is beginning to emerge.
The hon. Gentleman has referred to the application of precedent, but he has got it slightly wrong. As I understand it, this is a hybrid Bill to which the private Bill Standing Orders apply, but in other respects it is a public Bill. When one is dealing with the principle and precedent, one has to study the Bill to see whether private Bill Standing Orders apply and if they do—it is not a matter of choice or applying precedents—one must have a dispensation on from the Standing Orders Committee.

Mr. Hughes: The first part of that long intervention does not merit comment. The hon. Gentleman's second point repeats what I have said before, that the procedural matters, although grounded in the procedure for private Bills, are subject to the Orders of the House. That is the subject of this debate.
The relevant considerations of this matter go back to the report of the Transport Committee on 2 December 1985 — the first relevant document. In paragraph 27 the Committee said:
Unless the House has given any indication or instruction to the contrary, the second reading of a hybrid bill is considered to remove from the promoters the onus of proving the expediency of the bill. … At the beginning of the proceedings on the Channel Tunnel Bill 1974, Counsel for the Secretary of State for the Environment stated that the Secretary of State was`most anxious that the Petitioners should have all reasonable opportunity to put forward the points which concern them, providing that such points can properly be taken in proceedings of this nature. That being so, the Secretary of State has decided … to take no formal objections to the locus of any of the Petitioners."'
The Committee recommended that
this precedent be followed, that the fullest possible latitude again be allowed to petitioners and that all those whose petitions conform to the basic requirement of relevancy be allowed to be heard.
That recommendation was taken up by the Secretary of State for Transport in the Adjournment debate on 9 December 1985, when the matter first came substantively before the House. It would be useful to quote, selectively, the Secretary of State's views on what should happen:
There will be a hybrid Bill, which will give the promoters all the necessary powers. …


Although the decision has to be taken by Parliament, we want maximum local consultation. The location of the portal of any link is dictated by geography. So the matters to be considered and consulted upon locally are principally, but not exclusively, first, the precise effects of the link on those immediately affected, on their properties and amenities, secondly, the effect on the local economy in terms of jobs gained and lost, in construction and upon opening, and, more importantly, the employment likely to be gained by this mammoth transport development—perhaps the biggest communications artery in Europe. … Thirdly, there is the effect on the natural environment…Fourthly, there are the communications needs of the area as a result of the link … and, fifthly, the effect any structure that would be built in the channel would have on the safety of shipping and the freedom of navigation.
Those were the matters perceived by the Secretary of State as being relevant. On the procedural points the Secretary of State said:
There will be further consultations and opportunities for comment on a firm proposal. …
The hybrid Bill procedure contains every opportunity for those affected to be heard, including the hon. Member for Linlithgow (Mr. Dalyell) with his psychological problem.
That is not specifically relevant. The Secretary of State continued:
The procedure is well known to the House. It is comparable to the private Bill procedure, which has always been used for building railways and similarly requires no public inquiry. It was used when similar proposals were produced in 1974. The Select Committee recommended that we should follow the precedent of the 1974 Channel Tunnel Bill. … Subject to the rulings of the Select Committee, I would expect that those eligible would include individuals whose private interests are affected—those representing local trades, businesses and other local interests which may be adversely affected, those representing amenity, ecology, educational and recreational interests who believe that their interests are adversely affected to a material degree, and local authorities in any affected areas."—[Official Report, 9 December 1985; Vol. 88, c. 643–45.]
The Secretary of State undertook to allow the time that precedent provided under the previous Channel Tunnel Bill, and made his view known that there were groups whose interests were affected which should have a chance of making their views clear.
The third relevant document——

Mr. Neale: This is a filibuster.

Mr. Hughes: No, it is not a filibuster. It is a matter of great importance and the hon. Member for Cornwall, North (Mr. Neale) will be aware that, just as tin mining is vital to his constituents and county, so the most important matter to the people of Kent is that they should have their views heard. It is important that the Secretary of State's undertakings are honoured.
The Secretary of State made a speech to the Franco British Society on 14 May an extract from which reads:
I must ask our French friends to understand that we face a different situation to that in France, and to be a little patient while the legislation goes through Parliament. Against the background I have outlined. I am sure they can see that the process of debate must be allowed to consider and examine these things. There are of course the environmental, ecological and employment difficulties about the Tunnel—we all know and respect them. But underneath them there are these most intangible, if less logical, emotional difficulties present. The process of persuading people that their fears are groundless is nowhere more suitably exercised than in Parliament, with all its complex legislative processes. I have no doubt the Bill will emerge onto the Statute Book in the end. We must not be impatient at its slow progress.
I firmly believe that it is necessary to allow the doubters and the objectors the full panoply of Parliamentary opportunities, and to respond to their objections, whether they be personal, political or emotional with reasoned answers. Nor must we be seen to be stampeding the Bill through Parliament.

Given that the Government decided not to have a public inquiry and that they had to seek dispensation from the House regarding the Standing Orders, the impression is given that matters will proceed in a stampeding manner unless people are given a proper opportunity to put their case. The Secretary of State has made it clear that it is important for people to have a chance to put their view within the procedures that Parliament provides. Those procedures involve petitioning a Select Committee.
Clearly the Government think that that procedure should be used. As the Minister said on Tuesday, the Department of Transport has produced and circulated in Kent a leaflet which gives people guidance about their rights as petitioners, and which they can fill in. I understand that several of those leaflets have been returned to the Table Office but that the Table Office has not clarified whether the leaflet on which people make clear their request to petition has yet been accepted as a valid method of registering a desire to petition. Will the Minister clarify whether those who returned the forms are accepted to be valid petitioners, because they as yet do not know and the Table Office has riot as yet given any ruling?

Mr. Aitken: If by chance the Private Bill Office said, "No, we do not accept petitions that have followed precisely the words used in the leaflet issued by the Department of Transport". that would provoke in Kent a row of earthquake proportions. It would be thought that the Government were rejecting what they had themselves put forward as the perfect format for petitioning. There must be an element of common sense and flexibility in this matter, and I hope that the Minister will give the assurance that any petitioner who has followed the guidlines in the leaflet will have his petition accepted.

Mr. Hughes: The hon. Member will be aware that the leaflet came from the Government, whereas its acceptance is a matter for Parliament. We need a clear indication now that the relevant parliamentary officers will accept all the forms—those now in and those yet to be received—as being valid registration requests for petitions. It is important for the people concerned to know that the leaflet guidance provides an appropriate means for them to lodge requests to have their views heard.

Mr. David Mitchell: It may save unnecessary debate if I say that we cleared the leaflets with the Clerks of the House before the text went to the printer. I should be most surprised if there were any circumstance in which they were not satisfid with petitions returned in the form that went to the printer.

Mr. Hughes: I am grateful for that comment. I was told yesterday that there had been no official confirmation from the Officers of the House that they would be acceptable.

Mr. Mitchell: I cannot speak for the officials of the House, but I have given the background and one can have reasonable confidence about the position from that.

Mr. Hughes: I am grateful for that assurance.
The argument is whether the petitioners should have eight weeks or less time. We have for consideration two dates. They have not been plucked out of the air. They are based on precedent or on arguments that have been put forward. Those two dates appear in the amendments tabled


by my right hon. Friend the Member for Tweeddale, Ettrick and Lauderdale (Mr. Steel) and by the Leader of the Opposition.

Mr. Cash: The hon. Gentleman will know from his research that in comparable circumstances with a private Bill the measure would be deposited on 27 November and the closing date for petitions to be deposited would be 30 January in the ensuring year, which is eight weeks.
This measure was ordered to be printed on 17 April, was available in the Vote Office on 18 April and the date in the motion by which petitions must be deposited is 17 June. That is nearly nine weeks, which is longer than would have been available were it a private Bill.

Mr. Hughes: I will seek to deal with that point and with the other points because they are important.
It has been accepted that this is a most exceptional, if not unique, Bill. Given what the Secretary of State said about granting the maximum latitude to petitioners, that militates in favour of the maximum period. As the hon. Member for Stafford (Mr. Cash) has said, it is quite correct that the period from the date of the printing of the Bill and its First Reading to the date proposed by the Government is eight weeks. None the less, an argument was advanced, as the hon. Member for Stafford will recall, in the Select Committee on Standing Orders by the only two petitioners at that time, the Dover Harbour Board and Sealink UK Ltd., that the period for depositing petitions should be eight weeks from the Second Reading of the Bill.
It could be argued and the Government's original position was that eight weeks from the First Reading and publication of the Bill was sufficient. My argument was advanced not as a matter of procedure but because I am aware of the enormous number of people and organisations who wish to present their cases and to ensure that, procedurally, they do it properly. They also wish to make sure that once Second Reading is granted they present their cases in due time and that there are no hiccups. Those people want the maximum opportunity in accordance with the latitude that the Secretary of State said he would give.
If one is procedurally and precisely following the only precedent that is nearly appropriate, which is the one of 1973–74, then the House will be aware that the Channel Tunnel Bill was introduced and given its Second Reading on 5 December 1973 and petitions against the Bill were ordered to be deposited by 15 January 1974—almost six weeks. That period is almost exactly in accord with the amendment proposed by the Leader of the Opposition and his colleagues. We argue that a longer period is important and necessary for a combination of the two reasons: first, that this is a more important and more complicated Bill: and, secondly, because in 1973 documents like the Kent impact study had been produced some eight months beforehand and had been available for petitioners to digest.
As the hon. Member for Stafford and other hon. Members will be aware, one of the complaints this time is that the environmental impact statement has not yet been produced and is unlikely to be produced except in an interim form. I raised that matter with the Secretary of State. That statement will be the result of what is called the Mitchell committee's deliberations if the committee agrees to produce it some time later this month. Therefore, the normal access to information that would be expected,

particularly for a Bill of this importance and complexity, and that was granted in 1973–74 has not been granted on this occasion.
As the hon. Member for Stafford and other hon. Members will know, complaints have been made that, for example, the Council for the Protection of Rural England and others wanted to have access to copies of maps in order to make points in petitions. Those maps were only made available on 15 or 16 May, and there are several reasons why information has either not been available at all, which makes life more difficult for petitioners, or has been made available belatedly. On the substantial matters of environmental and economic and local importance, given now that it is clear that there is likely to be a large number of petitioners, it is important that the spirit of the Secretary of State's remarks is carried through by the decision of the House that the maximum period be granted.
My final point is one which might be made against an argument that 29 July is the right date. It could be argued that the setting of that date is an attempt to kill the Bill. That is not the case, for the following reasons. By its very nature, this Bill will carry over into the next Session of Parliament. It was always expected that it would take two Sessions. That being the case, it is not imperative — indeed, it has never been envisaged—that the procedure in this House, let alone in the other place, should be completed before the end of this Session of Parliament.
The normal precedent is that when the Select Committee procedure has been decided upon there is a period for negotiations between the promoters of the Bill and the other interested parties before the petitioners put their case to the Select Committee. Therefore, it would be possible and appropriate for the summer recess to be used for the negotiations. That would considerably shorten the time taken in the Select Committee and the time taken by the Select Committee.
As the Minister of State said in response to a question about an hour and a half ago, it is now highly likely that the original Government plan for the timetable, of six weeks in Select Committee, is far from realistic and that unless there is a period for both sides to reconcile the matters that can be reconciled, the Select Committee proceedings, even if the Select Committee meets for a considerable period, will take much longer than six weeks.
In certain circumstances, the Select Committee could meet during the summer recess. I am aware that in order to do so the end date for petitions would have had to pass, that the motion of the Select Committee on Selection as to the composition of the Select Committee would have had to take place, and that the Select Committee would have had to meet before the recess to decide on its procedure. I am not arguing that that is likely to be achieved between 29 July and the summer recess, because in all probability the House will rise at about that date. However, it is certainly a procedurally sound precedent to allow time between the end of the period for petitions and the start of the hearings before the Select Committee. That would shorten the proceedings while giving time for the people of Kent and the interested bodies in Kent and beyond not only to make their case but to deal with the promoters on the issues raised by their petitions and by the Bill. It would still permit time for the matter to be dealt with by the Select Committee in the autumn, for the matter then to proceed in the normal way to Standing Committee


and to the other place, and for the Bill to complete all its stages during the next Session of Parliament, as was always envisaged.
The proceedings may be completed a month or two later than the Government hope, but I believe that that would be not a loss but a gain. It would allow the people of Kent, who in their thousands clearly feel that they are not being listened to and that the Government are moving too quickly, to have an opportunity properly to put their case.
I hope that the House will act on the request that was made to the Select Committee on Standing Orders in May: that eight weeks should be granted from Second Reading to the petitioners whose petition was then established. In accepting that request, I hope that the House will reject the other, lesser amendments and will recognise the importance of the Bill. I hope too, that the Government will back away from appearing to wish to steamroller the Bill through Parliament in the face of the objectors and the valid concerns of thousands of people and that they will accept that, having obtained their Second Reading a few hours ago, they can afford to allow the people of Kent and beyond to put their anxieties properly before the Committee set up by the House. As the Secretary of State said, the period that would provide maximum latitude is eight weeks, as advocated in the amendment of my right hon. and hon. Friends and myself.

Mr. Leon Brittan: I hope that I shall be forgiven if I do not take up the argument of the hon. Member for Southwark and Bermondsey (Mr. Hughes). The reason for not doing so is not out of discourtesy to him but because the approach that I invite the House to bring to bear, as set out in amendments (e) and (f), is based upon a different set of considerations from those which seem to motivate the hon. Gentleman.
I am concerned not so much with the question of precedent—who said what, arid when, or who did what on the last occasion — but with the fundamental and simple question of fairness to which I referred on raising these issues when we debated them last Tuesday. My only concern is for a fair opportunity to be given to the people who wish to object to the whole or part of the Government's proposals and for a fair opportunity to be given to Parliament to consider those objections.
If that is the principle that one brings to bear, to which conclusion should one come? Some of the more extravagant criticisms of the Government have exploded in the faces of those who made them. The reality is that the Bill has been available publicly for some time, and for those interested groups and organised, corporate bodies which have a legitimate, vested interest in the outcome of the matter, there is no problem with the Government's timetable. None the less, as I said on Tuesday, it seems clear that for the private individual, who may not be aware of the precise distinctions between what one can do when the Bill is published, when the general scheme is formulated and after Second Reading, some further latitude is desirable ever and above that provided in the motion which stands in the Government's name.
With those considerations in mind, I embarked on discussions, primarily with my hon. and learned Friend the Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Trade and Industry—the hon. and learned Member for Folkestone and Hythe (Mr. Howard)—who has been assiduous in ensuring that the interests of his constituents are put before

the House and within Government. As a result of discussions as to what was necessary and proper for the people of Kent, my view is reflected in the amendment that stands in my name and inititally in the name of my hon. Friend the Member for Thanet, South (Mr. Aitken) and several other hon. Members.
It is a balance. Of course, no one suggests that if a week or a slightly longer period were added to that reflected in my amendment, the scheme would come to an end. Of course not. None the less, it is reasonable that the matter should be proceeded with at reasonable speed, and the extra time provided for the presentation of petitions should be no more than is necessary. I cannot pretend to be an expert on the state of public opinion in Kent or on the readiness of individuals in Kent to present their petitions, but I cannot help reflecting on the current timetables that are offered.
When my hon. Friend the Member for Thanet, South joined me in putting forward the dates that appear in amendments (e) and (f), which emerged from discussions with my hon. and learned Friend the Under-Secretary of State, we discovered quickly that the amendments attracted considerable support in the House. It is notable that a large proportion of the names appended to the amendments are the Members of Parliament who represent Kentish constituencies, such as my hon. Friend the Member for Maidstone (Sir J. Wells), my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Dover (Mr. Rees), my hon. Friend the Member for Thanet, North (Mr. Gale) as well as others. Therefore, it is reasonable to conclude that that shows some consensus as to what is necessary and acceptable.

Mr. Douglas Hogg: My hon. Friend has picked up another interesting point. When one examines the names of those who subscribed to the amendment, one sees an unusual number of lawyers. Perhaps that also shows the concern of many hon. Members who must deal with legal problems. Inevitably, when one deals with matters of this complexity, it takes a long time for some constituents to ascertain what their legal rights are, how to proceed and, especially, bring them before the House.

Mr. Brittan: I am sure that is the case.
I remain of the view that the timetable envisaged in amendments (e) and (f) is right and would be generally acceptable. I welcome the fact that, although on Tuesday we were not debating it directly, it was the centre of discussion. My hon. Friend the Minister of State, in answering the debate, spoke extremely sympathetically abou it—so sympathetically, I think, that the House and country understood what he said to mean, that the Government regarded the amended timetable as acceptable. I hope that in reaching that conclusion I was not assuming too much and that that will be ratified and confirmed when he replies to the debate.
Again, I commend the amendments to the House.

Mr. Michael Stern: I do not claim to be an expert on procedure, and I come to this aspect of the debate—the question of timing—with a relatively fresh outlook.
Discussed in terms of purely Kentish interests, it may well be that there has been a great deal of publicity on the effects of the Bill and, therefore, that for most people,


although not all, the opportunity to develop the idea of petitioning against the Bill or for the Bill and submitting that petition in time has probably been given. However, the Bill has a much wider context, and I think it is extremely unlikely with regard to small groups of individuals particularly outside the area immediately affected by the construction of the tunnel, that the opportunity has yet been given to the extent promised by the Government in the course of the discussions on the Bill.
For many people like myself who are unfamiliar with the procedure on a private Bill or a hybrid Bill, there may well have been a temptation to defer thinking about whether to petition until the relevant procedure was laid down by Parliament, as is being done now. There are the difficulties that will then be faced by, say, a group of workers in the port of Avonmouth in my constituency who have a genuine interest in the implications of the Bill but who nevertheless have never before had to face a private Bill procedure. They may, therefore, later today — by which I mean in normal rather than parliamentary terms—well get together and say, "we shall go along to see our MP tonight and discuss with him how best we can put forward a petition".
Let us look at the problem that they face under the procedure outlined. They have 11 days in which to decide whether to petition, what the basis of their petition is to be and, if it is to be heard, whether they wish to be heard themselves or to appoint an agent to appear on their behalf. If they decide that they wish to appoint an agent, they have to decide whom they wish to appoint, and who appoints him. They have to prepare the petition and agree among themselves what should appear in it.
Let us remember that they do not have the exhaustive office facilities that are available to hon. Members.

Mr. Douglas Hogg: My hon. Friend has been reciting the difficulties that stand in the way of his constituents. He must not forget that the petition has to be in the proper form. I anticipate that many people who wish to make a petition will have difficulty in obtaining the proper form in which to make it. As I understand the motion and the amendments, if the petition is not in the proper form the petitioners will not be able to present their arguments.

Mr. Stern: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for making that point. Someone unfamiliar with the procedure may not have known before this debate that such a proper form existed.
To complete my description of the difficulties to be handled in the 11-day period, may I point out that if the petitioners do not have office facilities they will have to find some place in which the documents can be typed and copied? The petition will have to be submitted by the stated date. Of the 11-day period specified, two days are Sundays. If I may be forgiven a slight element of sour grapes, we have made sure in the House recently that none of the procedures that I have mentioned may be carried out on two of the days in the 11-day period.
The Bill will affect the whole country and not just Kent. We should be concerned about making available to all the people their rights as citizens to make representations on this important measure, although I accept that the procedures as normally laid down have been carried out and that there has been a slight extension of the time

normally given. The normal procedures are designed for Bills about which there is adequate publicity to enable people to make their representations.
There is a widening realisation of the implications of the Bill. I can assure the Minister that six months ago the Channel tunnel was not being discussed in the pubs and clubs of Avonmouth; now it is. That discussion is broadening all the time. My hon. Friends from outside the area know how their postbag has been developing on the issue. They are now getting letters from people who did not realise until recently the extent to which they would be affected.
Because of the growing number of people who feel, rightly or wrongly, that they may be affected by the Bill, to give 11 days, of which two are dead days, for them to read reports about the procedure to be followed and then to go through that procedure may seem reasonable according to precedent, but in my view it cannot be considered reasonable.

Mr. Aitken: I take as my text for these brief remarks the last words of my hon. Friend the Member for Bristol, North-West (Mr. Stern). I agree that the test of the matter and of this group of amendments is what is reasonable. We can go up hill and down dale on the subject of precedents. I speak with experience when I say that, because I went up hill and down dale in front of the Standing Orders Committee last month, and I went up hill and down dale two nights ago in the House. At the end of it all, I suspect that neither I, the House nor the Standing Orders Committee could make head or tail of the precedents.
The common sense judgment was put very well by my right hon. Friend the Leader of the House when he spoke in the debate on 3 June. He said:
Valuable though precedent is as a guide in this unfamiliar area, the House, I am sure, would not wish to proceed except on the basis of fair arrangements for those who might wish to oppose the Bill's effects on them. The Government believe that those whose interests may be affected by the Bill should have an opportunity to marshall their arguments effectively, as they would have if affected by a private Bill."—[Official Report, 3 June 1986; Vol. 98, c. 837.]
I think that we can all say "Hear, hear" to that.
Two precise amendments have been tabled. Amendment (c) in the name of the hon. Member for Southwark and Bermondsey (Mr. Hughes) and other Liberal Members would provide an, eight-week period for petitions from the date of Second Reading. The hon. Gentleman has one eminent and learned supporter of his view, Mr. Joe Durkin, the parliamentary agent for the petitioners, who argued exactly that point in front of the Standing Orders Committee.
The second precedent is that set by the previous Channel Tunnel Bill, the detail of which I discussed at some length in our debate on Tuesday, and which provides for six weeks from the date of Second Reading.
The third proposal is that of my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Richmond, Yorks (Mr. Brittan) for a period of three weeks and two days from the date of Second Reading. Impressed as I was by the arguments put forward by my right hon. and learned Friend, I feel that I must pay a tribute elsewhere. One might say that the voice might be the voice of Richmond, but the hands were the hands of my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Folkestone and Hythe (Mr. Howard), the Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Trade and Industry. He has


had a very difficult task to fulfil. These days he is often referred to in the House by the adjective "assiduous". It sounds almost like something from a book on trees—an assiduous or deciduous tree. He certainly is assiduous, but as his parliamentary neighbour I know that the people of Folkestone are fortunate to have such a first-class Member of Parliament. He has fought for them behind the scenes just as effectively, if not more so, than those of us who have the privilege of the freedom of the Back Benches to fight our battles up front.
My hon. and learned Friend the Member for Folkestone and Hythe, my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Richmond, Yorks and I are on the same side. We are trying to obtain a fair and sensible deal for our constituents. I should have preferred the amendment put forward by the hon. Member for Southwark and Bermondsey for an eight-week period, or that we should follow the Anthony Crosland Bill precedent for a six-week period. However, we have a three-week period, which makes some sense in terms of straight fair play.
If we had stuck to the Government's proposal for a 12-day period, we would have been in great danger of being unfair to our constituents. I know that there are all sorts of arguments showing that a 12-day period is in line with what has been done before. However, nothing in the Bill has ever been done before because we have never had a Bill quite like it. We are into new territory. Indeed, constant new developments make a sensible petitioning period absolutely essential.
My hon. Friend the Minister may not have realised quite what a hostage to fortune he delivered at about 4 am. this morning, when he announced that the boat trains from Victoria to the Channel ports would cease from the date that the tunnel opens. That ministerial statement will cause consternation, if not uproar, in the Channel ports. I am sure that remark will be the subject of many clauses in many petitions. That is the last thing that the people of Kent want to see British Rail ordered to do by a Minister.

Mr. David Mitchell: I must protest. My hon. Friend has completely misunderstood the position if he believes in any way that I have powers to instruct British Rail what services to run or that I would dream of doing that, especially in such a sensitive matter. I understand that British Rail does not consider that it would be commercially worth its while running boat trains in addition to the other trains to Dover, especially when it can run trains directly through the tunnel. That is a commercial matter for British Rail to decide.

Mr. Aitken: The so-called commercial matters lack all sensitivity and political common sense. That announcement will cause the people of Kent to express their feelings on the matter through the petitioning process. It only goes to show that there is a need for a fair and adequate petitioning process on a subject as new and as newsworthy as the cancellation of boat trains. At least there is now a reasonable period in which to petition.
I do not want to labour the point unduly. My hon. and learned Friend the Member for Folkestone and Hythe, aided by his capable amanuensis, my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Richmond, Yorks, did a good job, and I am pleased to support them on that point.
These amendments make sense. They will make for fair play. Although they do not go as far as some hon. Members would have wanted to go—and I certainly

wanted more—on the principle that half a loaf is better than no bread and that three weeks is still not as good as six weeks, at least it is half of what we wanted. I am happy that the Government seem inclined to accept the amendment, and I will support it.

Mr. Cash: All hon. Members have great sympathy for the people of Kent having regard to the proposals in the Bill. I believe that that has been clearly revealed in the debates. Perhaps the voting figures have suggested otherwise. However, there is considerable sympathy for the people whose lives could be disrupted by the Bill's proposals, however important those proposals may be.
I support the Bill not simply because I believe that great benefits will be derived from it. Indeed, in my constituency British Reinforced Concrete has every possibility of gaining a considerable slice of the contracts, which will be good for the job prospects of my constituents. However, I appreciate that there are difficulties and I associate myself with the remarks of my hon. Friend the Member for Thanet, South (Mr. Aitken) about my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Folkestone and Hythe (Mr. Howard).
I would like to commence my remarks on these amendments by considering what would happen if a petition was presented after time. This is the crunch point because, if someone found that he was to be adversely affected and did not have an adequate opportunity to get his act together and presented a petition after the due date had passed, certain consequences would follow.
It would be useful to put on the record what those consequences would be. As I think that some people might care to read the report of the proceedings who otherwise might find that they would have to seek help elsewhere, it may be helpful if I give the page references from "Erskine May" which deal with these matters. Page 948 of the 20th edition of "Erskine May" states
If a petition be presented after the time limit, the only mode by which the petitioners can obtain a hearing is by presenting a petition, praying that the standing orders be dispensed with in their case, and that they may be heard by the committee. The petition will stand referred to the Standing Orders Committee; and if the petitioners are able to show"—
and this is the important point—
any special circumstances which entitle them to indulgence and, particularly, that they have not been guilty of laches," —
that means undue delay—
the standing orders may be dispensed with.
Various precedents are given to support that proposition which are set out in a footnote which I shall not worry the House with. A number of occasions are specified. one of which was in 1905, where these matters have been dealt with.
The important point is that, even if somebody were to go over the time limit, there is the power in the hands of the Standing Orders Committee to dispense with the Standing Orders in question. By "Standing Orders" we are talking about the Standing Orders relating to private Bills, in relation to which petitions have to be deposited, and, of course, that is the crucial question on this point.
I thought that it would be useful also to refer to what is really at stake in a matter of this kind——

Mr. Douglas Hogg: My hon. Friend has helpfully told the House that there is a power to dispense with the time limits, but I take it that that is a discretionary power which is not subject to very clear definitional tests. If that is right,


he will agree that the individual petitioner who is out of time might be very reluctant to make an application to the relevant Standing Committee for dispensation, and, in any event, he might find it necessary to instruct counsel.

Mr. Cash: I have great sympathy with what my hon. Friend is saying and I have great sympathy with the proposals set out in the amendment to jog the time forward by a number of weeks.
I said earlier when I intervened in the speech made by the hon. Member for Southwark and Bermondsey (Mr. Hughes) that the Bill was published on, I think, 17 April and that therefore it would have been available in the Vote Office on 18 April and that the date specified in the Government's motion of 18 June would give something over eight weeks.
Notwithstanding that point, the fact is that a crucial question arises from the Standing Orders on private Bills. I was advising shiprepairers on the Aircraft and Shipbuilding Industries Act 1977. A relevant point arose in the House of Lords on the Standing Orders and we were able to show that the Government agent had not put the requirement under Standing Orders that people should be shown to be able to object to the proposals in the hybrid Bill. The fact that that was not there was highly relevant. The Government agents argued it out and the shiprepairers got out of nationalisation.
The point that I want to make here is that, under the private Bill Standing Orders, they are all linked to dates which go back to 27 November and then 4 December, and, I think, 10 December after that. Stipulations are given as to when the advertisements must appear in the London Gazette and the local newspapers.
We must be realistic, because those people simply do not have access to the sort of facilities that we have in the House. Some people do not even have the foggiest idea about any Bill, let alone a hybrid Bill, which is a mystery to all of us because those things are extremely arcane and mysterious. But Standing Orders specify that the notices have to be published precisely in order to ensure that persons who live in a locality shall have adequate notice not only of the contents of the Bill but of their right to object to it. In that advertisement — this can all be checked—it gives the address of the parliamentary agent concerned, in this case the Government agent, and the address of the Private Bill Office in the House of Commons. They are then recommended to take appropriate action.

Mr. Wolfson: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for emphasising the fact that, in many cases, we are dealing with private individuals who, as my hon. Friend said, do not have access to the facilities we have here. I think that it is important to give the maximum time to those petitioners, or would-be petitioners. Following each stage of debate in the House, there is an opportunity for publicity in the local newspapers and further discussion on television or radio which alerts people to action that they might not otherwise have become aware of, despite the advertisements; hence the need for more time.

Mr. Cash: I understand what my hon. Friend has said. People simply do not know. Our procedures should be all about providing fairness for people in those circumstances. I think that it was Maine who said that justice is to be found

in the interstices of procedure, and we should bear that in mind. After all, the whole procedure on private Bills and the right to petition, which I hope I shall explain shortly, will give some indication as to what is involved for the private individual. The right to petition is an important inherent constitutional right which is given to people in our democracy.

Mr. Aitken: Before we get into the interstices of procedure, I wonder whether, because he is such an expert in this area, I can ask my hon. Friend's advice about one aspect of the interstices of the newspaper advertisements placed by the Department of Transport. My hon. Friend has been rightly stressing the importance of placing the correct advertisements in local newspapers. In an exchange between myself and my hon. Friend the Member for Canterbury (Mr. Crouch) in the early hours of Wednesday morning I said that I was interested in an advertisement which had been placed in the "Canterbury Times" on April 28. My hon. Friend the Member for Canterbury shouted back that there was no such newspaper.
I was slightly thrown by that simply because I had taken the name of the "Canterbury Times" from the written parliamentary answer given by my hon. Friend the Minister of State. The answer said, in listing all the advertisements that had been placed in local newspapers, that an advertisement about how to petition had been placed in the "Canterbury Times" on 28 April. Faced with the information that no such paper existed, I checked the matter and have found that no such paper exists.
Therefore we are faced with the case of the disappearing newspaper or the phantom advertisement. That may be the subject of a searching inquiry, bringing in the Ombudsman and others, into the interstices of the Department of Transport. I think that we should be told more about this matter. I simply want my hon. Friend's guidance on the significance of the phantom advertisement or the missing newspaper because, clearly, a dereliction of duty occurred and we would like to know what advertisement appeared in what newspaper and what is the significance of the omission.

Mr. Cash: Now that the right hon. Member for Mole Valley (Mr. Baker) has been transferred from the Department of the Environment to the Department of Education and Science, perhaps we will not have the chance to ask him that question because the Department of the Environment primarily has responsibility for matters relating to the conduct of local government Bills where so many of these things crop up.
The mystery to which my hon. Friend the Member for Thanet, South refers is the kind of matter that G. K. Chesterton's Father Brown should address. That is the sort of person who would be able to track down such a paper. There is a substantive and crucial point here. If notices are not put in local newspapers, people do not know what is going on. Under Standing Orders, they are required to place petitions not as a matter of choice but as a matter of requirement of the House, a practice hallowed for over a century. If the advertisements are not placed, local people do not know what is going on.

Sir John Farr: Perhaps I can help my hon. Friend the Member for Thanet, South over his inquiries about the


"Canterbury Times". It could be that the Department in question could have sent the advertisement to the "Canterbury Times" in Auckland, New Zealand.

Mr. Cash: I am grateful for that Antipodean note. We shall have a certain amount of difficulty in paying the air fares of those who feel that they should be petitioning against the Channel tunnel because of fear that it might suddenly emerge in New Zealand. However, this is an important point that should be taken on board.
The examiners have examined the Bill to see whether there has been compliance with Standing Orders, and, as I understand it, it has been agreed that they have been. That means that it is a fait accompli, and the end of the subject. There is substantial case law, with which I shall not weary the House, in the case of Pickin v British Ralways Board in the House of Lords. It stipulates that once the examiners have completed their procedures, that is it for present purposes.
The question whether the petitioners know has to be weighed against the extremely detailed information that the Department of Transport has made available. It would be unfair, in relying on the Standing Orders in "Erskine May", to overlook the fact that the Department has made available to people, and deserves congratulation for so doing, an immense amount of information. I have some doubt as to whether we could use the argument that people did not know what was going on.
When we are considering whether there is a case, in fairness, we have to look at it at two levels. One is the general public awareness, and the other is the right of the person to present a petition and to be heard on it before the Committee. However we look at the broad picture of public awareness — and we should be grateful to the Government for making the information available—the reality is that this is a procedural question. When the matter comes, if it does, before the Select Committee on Standing Orders, or before the Committee considering the Bill, it will not be reasonable for the Government to argue that, as so much material had been made available, nobody need worry any more. The consequence of a person not having complied with the Standing Order or not having got his petition in on time is likely to be fatal to his right to be heard. We should take that important point seriously.
If I were to suggest which of the various options presented to us by the amendments we should go for, I would go for the one in the name of my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Richmond, Yorks, (Mr. Brittan). That provides that bit more in the way of time and fairness for the petitioners, and balances the postion fairly well.

Mr. Hughes: I do not believe that the hon. Gentleman intended to mislead the House, However, my understanding of the Standing Orders Committee report is that the examiners of petitions for private Bills reported, in the case of this Bill, that:
Standing Orders … are applicable … and have not been complied with in respect of the time prescribed.
I stress that it says
have not been complied with in respect of the time prescribed.
It was obviously for that reason that the matters went to the Standing Orders Committee and then came to the House.
I hope that the hon. Gentleman will accept that if the campaign groups and those who are interested, and the representative bodies in Kent and beyond, say that the time

prescribed is not sufficient, that is a good test of whether the time should be extended. They are arguing, as I understand it, for eight weeks from Second Reading, and not for the lesser period that was proposed by the right hon. and learned Member for Richmond, Yorks (Mr. Brittan).

Mr. Cash: I have sympathy with the general arguments that have been expressed in the House on these matters. With regard to non-compliance with Standing Orders, the hon. Gentleman will find that there could not be anything otherwise. I have not been involved with this issue to any great extent until this evening, but my surmise is that it simply means non-compliance with those Standing Orders that could not be complied with because the private Bill Standing Order refers to 27 November. One cannot comply with Standing Orders where the Bill has been put on deposit on 27 November and was published only on 18 April. That is strict non-compliance in any event, and it applies to all hybrid Bills.
The point that I was making concerned other questions that might arise in relation to non-compliance. I went on to deal with two levels of concern. One of those is public awareness. The Government have gone further than one might reasonably have expected. They deserve congratulation.
The other question is the strict justice of the matter in relation to the prescription of Standing Orders. If someone did not have the full rights afforded him under the private Bill Standing Orders, he would be severely prejudiced. He would not be heard unless in turn the Committee was prepared to dispense with the Standing Orders by way of special indulgence, subject to the criteria that I mentioned, including the fact that the person concerned had not been involved in undue delay.
Several other points ought to be made. Appearances before the Select Committee are mentioned in amendment (f) in the name of my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Richmond, Yorks (Mr. Brittan). The question of appearances may also arise. All that I am about to say is directly relevant to whether people appear on time. If they do not appear on time, they will suffer the consequences of failing to do so and they are liable to be shut out. "Erskine May" says on page 1014:
If parties have neglected to enter their appearance at the proper time, they will not be entitled to be heard.
It goes on to say:
In some special cases … indulgence has been granted to them.
It quotes a number of instances in the 19th century.
It is not, however, simply a question of whether a petition has been handed in, but whether the person has appeared in accordance with Standing Orders. Complex matters must be complied with. It is important that people should know that they are on the line—that they are liable not to be heard if they fail to comply with the requirements.
That brings me back to the question of complexity, and information and the sorts of procedures with which people must comply in the time that is allotted. I said earlier, when I referred to notices, that by the time the period which is required under, I think, Standing Orders 4 and 11, dealing with Private Bills, is added on, we will be well into December — taking it forward from 27 November — within which period the various local advertisements in the London Gazette and, in the case of Northern Ireland, the Belfast Gazette—although that would not apply in this case —must be complied with.
When one subtracts that period—in other words, the period in which strictly required information is made available to the public—from 30 January and compares it with the period between 18 April and 17 June, one begins to observe a distortion which is against the interests of individual petitioners. That causes me some concern. That is why I agree with the amendment put forward by my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Richmond, Yorks.
Against that background, it is important to bear in mind what it is that people who could be affected would be expected to know about, assuming that they got the notice in the newspapers in the proper manner. I have referred to the importance of the right to petition. Perhaps it would be helpful if I quoted from page 858 of "Erskine May". It states:
The right of petitioning the Crown and Parliament for redress of grievances is acknowledged as a fundamental principle of the constitution"—
we cannot get anything clearer than that
It has been uninterruptedly exercised from very early times and has had a profound effect in determining the main forms of parliamentary procedure.
The requirement which is imposed under the Standing Orders on petitioners in terms of their right to be heard is set out on page 949 of "Erskine May". It describes the locus standi of petitioners against private Bills. That is an arcane and difficult subject. I do not believe that those who want to petition would be able to get their act together in the relatively short time that is provided at the moment—that, is, up to 17 June.
There are complex questions involving individuals, remoteness, injurious affection, and a stack of extraordinary expressions which go way back to the 19th century but which none the less have a direct bearing on the individual rights of people. We must have regard to the relatively late hour — it is not as late as some hon. Members may wish—when we consider that individuals should have every opportunity not only to be heard but to have the maximum time that the Government are prepared to give.
I hope that the Minister, in his reply, will allow a little more time for those petitioners. It is not a long time. I think that it is only 10 days. When one considers the fact that the Government — according to the informal papers which the Government have supplied—is taking the Bill through to December 1986 and the following Session, I would not have thought that 10 days was a lot to ask. Surely 10 days is not such a great deal to ask of the Government at this stage.
I happen to be much in favour of the principle behind the Bill and the proposals in it, but I think that we as a Parliament have a duty to ensure that people are seen to be treated fairly. For the sake of 10 days—that is all that it boils down to—it would be reasonable for the Government to make a concession. As a member of the party which is in government, I believe that the Government would gain a great deal of credit by so doing. They would be seen not to be intransigent and inflexible. Instead, they would be recognised as being reasonable and fair. This is something that we must seek to do.
I have referred to the Standing Orders which prescribe the right of persons to be heard and perhaps it would be useful, if not a little lengthy, to go into them, they having a direct bearing upon the time that is made available to

petitioners for the important reasons that I have already given. If the petitioners do not have sufficient time, they will be shut out, or they may fail to get their petition in in time. If they fail to get in their appearance, they will be shut out with the most dire consequences for themselves. How invidious it would be for some persons to have put in individual locus standi objections and petitioners and for others to find that they could not get in. What an unfairness that would be.
Petitioning against a Bill can cut the other way. There is another procedure, to which I have not referred, on which those who are present might care to reflect. The 20th edition of "Erskine May" is a mighty volume and it informs us that there is a procedure that is known as petitions against alterations, which provides an opportunity for those who do not want a Bill to be altered to deposit a petition.
There are some theological arguments on whether a petition against alterations can be deposited in respect of hybrid Bills. The balance of opinion, however, is that petitions against alterations may be deposited againt them. Such petitioners may, too, have need of the time that is available. We do not know how they would react if they were to be provided with such an opportunity.
I am confining myself as best I can to the Standing Orders that relate to private business, which is germane as we are considering procedural issues. There is a range of criteria laid down in Standing Orders with which persons are required to comply, otherwise they may be shut out of the right to be heard. Standing Order No. 92 states:
It shall be competent to the Court of Referees, if they think fit, to admit petitioners to be heard upon their petitions against a private bill, on the ground of competition.
This matter arose during the passage of the railway Bills—my great grandfather was chairman of the London-Brighton railway back in 1832. I believe that the Standing Orders that relate to competition were much used in those days when everyone was competing with one another. I have not yet heard of a potential rival or competitor to the Channel tunnel, but one never knows. Indeed alternative routes may be offered which could compete with the Channel Tunnel Bill.
Individuals may be affected by the provisions under Standing Order No. 93 and members of companies are also affected by them. The Standing Order reads:
Where a bill is promoted by an incorporated company, society, association or partnership, members thereof shall not be entitled to be heard before the committee against the bill, unless their interests as affected thereby are distinct from the general interests of the company, society, association or partnership.
It allows a locus standi to associations. An association can petition against a Bill alleging that its trade — most important to those genuinely aggrieved by the proposals in a bill—business or interests
will be injuriously affected by the provisions contained therein,
It allows discretion to the Court of Referees to admit the petitioners to be heard on these allegations.
Standing Order No. 95—this should be read carefully because one does not want to be caught out—states:
Without prejudice to the generality of the foregoing paragraph, where any society, association or other body sufficiently representing amenity, educational, travel or recreational interests, petition against a bill, alleging that the interests they represent will be adversely affected to a material extent by the provisions contained in the bill,
the Court of Referees has the discretion to admit those petitioners to be heard.
Within the time scale prescribed it would be possible for persons who fell within the provisions of Standing Order No. 95 to discover that they were shut out if they had not made their case in the proper prescribed form in which petitions must be deposited.
There is the locus standi for local authorites and inhabitants. Local authorities have locus standi in relation to other Standing Orders.

Mr. Michael Brown: My hon. Friend made an important point about the rights of petitioners to petition against an additional petition. I followed what my hon. Friend said on that matter and indeed that proposition is before a private Bill Committee of which I am a member. To demonstrate to the House how such petitions can occur, I have before me—for obvious reasons I shall not refer to any detail except the title—the London Docklands Railway (City Extension) Bill additional provision, which is a set of amendments brought forward by the promoters; and I also have before me the petition against the additional provision. Therefore, I confirm what my hon. Friend has said, and that procedure is in use in a private Bill Committee at this time.

Mr. Cash: I am grateful to my hon. Friend, as he has provided me with another provision, the one relating to additional provision, I was referring to petitions against alterations. If that has not confused everyone, I do not know what will.
These matters are complex and arcane, but they are important. What I say is of great importance to the individual petitioners. Contrary to the assertions of the Opposition and some newspapers that this is a filibuster, I hope that our proceedings will give some useful advice to petitioners about their rights. Through these proceedings we are providing them with information which will be of considerable benefit to them. I challenge any hon. Member whose house was about to be bulldozed, sterilised or afflected by nuclear waste—

Mr. Douglas Hogg: Does my hon. Friend understand that hon. Members who represent constituencies which may be affected by nuclear waste see a parallel here? We are here to ensure that the people of Kent get a fair deal partly to make the point that the people of Lincolnshire should get a fair deal, should the Government be so ill advised as to suggest that Fulbeck should see low-level waste. We shall not put up with that.

Mr. Cash: I am sure that you would not like me to be diverted down the nuclear path, Mr. Deputy Speaker. Regarding my earlier remark about the hon. Member for Southwark and Bermondsey, who was asleep at the time, I now realise that I am in the position of the Fox-North coalition of the late 18th century in this unholy alliance of the nuclear and Channel tunnel defeaters, while I support the Bill's proposals.
Although I am in favour of the proposals in the Bill, I am absolutely in favour of people having every right given to them in our Standing Orders, within our parliamentary democracy and within this Parliament to enable them to petition within a reasonable time so as not to feel unfairly shut out. The real question is one of fairness. We must ensure that those people are given the information that they deserve.
I have slightly lost track of the time, so I am not certain how long I have to go.

Mr. Simon Hughes: As the hon. Gentleman has far exceeded the time that I took to open the debate, he will perhaps allow me to remind him that he has spoken for more than 40 minutes. If—and I deny this entirety—I seemed to drop off earlier., on reflection I would rather have done so more recently as, although these procedural matters may be of some importance, they are not the most gripping contribution for the other hon. Members present.

Mr. Cash: I take the hon. Gentleman's point, but when he sees the remark that I made when he was asleep he will see the poignancy and irony in the remark that he has just made.
During the debate serious matters have been canvassed. Although it is now 6.33 am, we are having a serious discussion about matters directly relevant to potential petitioners in Kent, and I hope that all opportunities will be open to them to enable them to be fairly heard so that they will not feel harshly treated, although they may not like the proposals in the Bill. If their petitions are in the proper form, as prescribed by the Standing Orders, they will be heard. They will discover that they get a fair hearing from this House, and they will have the opportunity to seek amendments—I have a suspicion that amendments will be made—to improve the Bill.

Mr. Douglas Hogg: I support the claim that we should enlarge the time within which petitions may be deposited. I agree with the remarks of my hon. Friend the Member for Thanet, South (Mr. Aitken) about precedent. Precedent is totally irrelevant in this case, partly because we should be dealing with justice—while what was done in the past may be a guide to justice, it is not necessarily a sure guide—and partly because what we are discussing is so extensive in its scope that nothing that has happened in the past is of the slightest help to what we should do today.
The measure now before us will be of enormous consequence to the people of Kent and throughout the United Kingdom. To talk about having a few days in which to lodge a petition is nonsense. My hon. Friend the Member for Stafford (Mr. Cash) talked about the date on which the Bill was first published. Though an interesting date to consider, it is not a helpful date from which to start.
We should start from the date of Second Reading. It is possible, even in this Parliament, that a measure will not achieve a Second Reading, and no sensible man should invest in a petition, backed by counsel, solicitors and the rest, until the Bill has achieved its Second Reading, which in this case was only a few hours ago.

Mr. Cash: My hon. Friend will agree that, the Bill having received its Second Reading only a few hours ago, it would be cutting it fine even to agree to the date in the amendment standing in the name of my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Richmond, Yorks (Mr. Brittan). In fairness, we must consider the date on which the advertisements first appeared, because that was notice to the public locally through the London Gazette. That combined with the date of 18 April, enables us to argue with justification that 27 June would be a considerable improvement on the 17 June, as specified in the motion.

Mr. Hogg: My hon. Friend is differentiating between the solicitor and the barrister. In these matters the barrister takes a broad brush approach. We start from the fact that only a few hours ago the Bill got its Second Reading. If


I were a petitioner somewhere in Kent I should not instruct somebody like me to draft a petition unless and until the measure got its Second Reading. It would be a waste of money to do otherwise.
The time from which the horses start to run is the time when the Bill receives its Second Reading. In the committal motion we are considering a few days. That short a period is unwise because, as my hon. Friend the Member for Stafford pointed out, this matter affects people's rights. Moreover, if those people get it wrong, they will not have a chance to make their case. We are talking about matters which can be affected by small errors.
It is strange that we should be talking about a few days. People have to see the advertisement to know that they have a right to petition. They have then to see their lawyers, raise money, draft the petition in the prescribed form, lodge it. if any of those things goes wrong, the petitioner is shut out. All that argues for plenty of time. In one place it is suggested that the date should be 17 June, while in another that it should be the 27 June or 31 July. Those dates are nonsense. People should have months in which to lodge petitions. A few days seems absurd. I rather agree with the remark of my hon. Friend the Member for Thanet, South about half a loaf.
If the best that we can persuade the Goernment to accept is 27 June, I will go along with that date because I am in favour of an extension of time. The basic proposition that we should make in the debate is that people's rights should be protected. When we come to that proposition, precedent matters not at all. We need to be realistic and we need to try to meet the justice of individual cases. I hope that we will be as generous as possible about the time by which petitions must be lodged.

Mr. Gale: I am grateful to my hon. Friend the Member for Grantham (Mr. Hogg) for his robust advocacy on behalf of the people of north-east Kent. My potato growers do not want the tunnel any more than his Lincolnshire potato growers want nuclear waste. I hope that it will be possible for Kent Members to return some of the compliment that he has paid to us tonight.
The people of north-east Kent will regard this long debate not as a filibuster, but as a genuine defence of their legitimate rights. Apart from a natural break which my hon. Friend the Member for Thanet, South (Mr. Aitken) is taking at the moment, he and my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Folkstone and Hythe (Mr. Howard) have been in the Chamber non-stop for 15 hours on behalf of the people of Kent.
My hon. Friend the Member for Stafford (Mr. Cash) confused the House sufficiently with quotations from "Erskine May" to demonstrate the great complexity of the issue. It is unreasonable to suppose that the ordinary person, who certainly wishes to make known his or her protest against the Bill, should have even the remotest grasp of these complex proceedings.

Mr. Cash: I hope that my hon. Friend will accept that the points I made were intended not to confuse but to illustrate the fact that confusion once confounded can become confoundedly difficult to unravel.

Mr. Gale: I take that point entirely. When I was a radio journalist we used to use a device called vox pop. We took a microphone into the street and asked people for instant impressions on a variety of subjects. Heaven knows that enough people in this place would come running to a microphone if one were offered. If one were to do that outside the Chamber and ask, say, 10 hon. Members who voted for the procedural motion on Tuesday or, indeed, for Second Reading yesterday, to stand in front of a microphone and describe in some detail the hybrid Bill procedure, if those hon. Members had not been in the Chamber for most of the night—as many hon. Members have not—one would probably get 10 different views on the hybrid Bill procedure. If hon. Members have a less than adequate grasp of the procedures that we are debating, how can the ordinary people of north-east Kent be expected to have a finer grasp?
On Tuesday night we heard from my right hon. Friend the Leader of the House that sufficient extra time would be given to those of our constituents who wished to present petitions. I raised earlier the point that as the motion carried on Tuesday and the one before the House now stand, there is technically one day on which petitions may be lodged. That in itself is quite unreasonable.
I am pleased to see my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State in his place again. It is not only the petitioners who may wish to have further time. My right hon. Friend has been kind enough to say that he will reconsider, after the representations that have been made, the future of the Thanet Way. Given a little extra time, my right hon. Friend maybe able to make some suggestions to the House, in particular to me and to my hon. Friend the Member for Thanet, South, which will enable us to advise our petitioners during the 10 days for which we are asking. Although I have not consulted him, I think that I can fairly add the name of my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Folkstone and Hythe, who wishes to advise his constituents about the requisite procedures that they will need to follow in order to lodge their petitions and complaints against the Bill.
On behalf of the three Members of Parliament with north Kent constituencies and on behalf, I believe, of many other hon. Members, too, I express the hope that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Transport and my hon. Friend the Minister of State will look kindly upon the amendment that has been tabled by my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Richmond, Yorks (Mr. Brittan) and concede the 10 days for which we are asking.

Mr. Michael Brown: The House will see that I am a signatory to amendment (d) which provides for a slightly longer period than has been so reasonably requested by my hon. Friend the Member for Thanet, North (Mr. Gale). We are anxious to further the request of those of my hon. Friends who represent Kent constituencies.
During the debate the attendants were kind enough to unlock Committee Room 6 so that I could obtain the petitions that are being considered by the opposed private Bill Committee, of which I am a member. I have no intention of referring to the contents of the petitions. It is for the Committee to deliberate only when it has heard all the evidence on behalf of the promoters and the petitioners.
The Committee is considering a relatively small Bill, the London Docklands Railway (City Extension) Bill, but


each petition that has been received is a very complicated document. As my hon. Friend the Member for Grantham, (Mr. Hogg) said, each petition has had to be prepared either by individuals or by solicitors and counsel representing individuals. A petition is a very complicated document. A private individual who is not versed in this procedure will need to take advice from a solicitor and to instruct counsel in order to prepare the petition.
I intend to read from a petition, leaving out any reference to its substance, in order to give the House some idea of the complicated wording with which a petitioner has to become familiar. It is the petition of the trustees of an organisation that could easily be a heritage organisation in Kent. The petition could read:
A Bill is now pending in your honourable House entitled a Bill to empower the construction of the Channel Tunnel, to acquire lands, to confer powers upon—
whatever authority it might be—
and for other purposes. Your petitioners are injurously affected by the Bill in the manner and object to it for the reasons hereinafter stated.
Then the average petition that any petitioner for any such Bill might introduce goes through each clause. You can see from the pages that I am turning over, Mr. Deputy Speaker, that it is a detailed document.
Although to hon. Members this is still 5 June, to the outside world it is Friday, 6 June. Tomorrow, in the outside world's eyes, is Saturday—not a working day, and the same is true on Sunday. That takes us to 9 June, so there are about six working days between the time of the rising of the House later today and the time when petitions must be deposited in time for consideration by the Select Committee. The petitioners are likely to be individuals or groups of individuals, including residents' associations. Such people are not experienced or well versed in the complicated procedures of hybrid Bills and the especially peculiar procedures that are being considered for this Bill.

Mr. Forth: I am fascinated by the direction of my hon. Friend's arguments. Does he believe that a standard time should be allowed for all such petitions, or that the time allowable should be proportional to the complexity of the case or to the number of people involved? The House would like to know whether he will head in one direction or the other so that we may bring our thoughts to bear on the matter.

Mr. Brown: My point, which is reflected in the amendment, is simply that every petitioner, be he ever so high or ever so low, should have the longest possible time that the House is prepared to give him to instruct solicitors or counsel to prepare the documents. The argument has been adduced by other hon. Members. We wish to ensure that any petitioner who may be injuriously affected if the Bill reaches the statute book in its present form should have the right to object and prepare his case with as long an interval as possible between Second Reading of the Bill and the cut-off date by which petitions must be deposited with parliamentary agents or with the Public Bill Office.
The House is being asked to consider a vital set of amendments. I strongly support the speeches that have been made this morning because I and my constituents have a great understanding of what it means to have something imposed on them which will adversely affect the value of their properties. My constituents are aggrieved by the way in which the machinery of government has

interfered with their rights, and they are upset by the speed and undue haste with which a matter relating to my constituency has been pursued during the past few months.
From the letters and petitions that I have received on that issue, I can imagine only too well the many representations that will have been made to hon. Members representing Kent constituencies. It is reasonable to assume that every constituent of my hon. Friend the Member for Thanet, North who has written to him is a potential petitioner against the Bill. As my hon. Friend is saddled with the burden of having to write back saying that the main course of redress available is via the petition process, it will be necessary to come to terms with this complicated procedure. I do not think that eight days will provide adequate time in which to be able to formulate the petitions that will be required to be presented.
There is also a problem of bureaucracy in the Public Bill Office. If in the next eight days it were possible for every petitioner and group of petitioners to construct their petitions satisfactorily by 17 June and deposit them, correctly checked, in the Public Bill Office, heaven knows what kind of bureaucratic problems there would be in that office. The pile of papers that I am holding is a sample of all the petitions for a relatively small private Bill, which I am in the process of considering.
We heard figures mentioned earlier of several hundred petitioners—possibly thousands—that are likely to be deposited. I wonder whether the Public Bill Office has the resources to cope with the onslaught that is going to occur within the next few days. There will be a problem of bureaucracy that we shall have to face. I cannot believe that there has ever been an occassion in the past when the appropriate Public Bill Office organisation and staff have catered for the large number of petitions that are expected and are likely to be received.

Mr. Cash: Will my hon. Friend bear in mind that when the matter gets to the Select Committee, the question of having transcripts available will become a very important issue? Transcripts will be available for the Government and, indeed, for those parties that can afford them, because the costs of transcripts are borne by the parties concerned. If people do not gear themselves up to having those transcripts available, they will be in serious trouble as the proceedings go forward. Will my hon. Friend consider passing on a message that transcripts should be made available at reasonable, if not nil, cost to the parties concerned for the reason that I have already given, namely, that this is essential?

Mr. Brown: I hope that my hon. Friends on the Treasury Bench have heard what my hon. Friend has said. There is no doubt that every one of these petitions will be the subject of examination and cross-examination, and obviously transcript facilities may well be inadequate.
The fundamental point of this series of amendments is to make sure that the maximum possible time is available to those who wish to petition against something that is going to injure them. As a Member of Parliament whose constituents know what it is to have a decision taken that adversely affects them and the value of their properties, I can appreciate fully the way in which those constituents of my hon. Friend will want to use every avenue open to them. The only avenue that is effectively open to them is the right to petition, which must carry with it the right to have adequate time to prepare the petition.
I hope that my hon. Friend the Minister will be able to give us some helpful words that might persuade us to withdraw the amendment.

Mr. David Mitchell: My hon. Friend the Member for Thanet, South (Mr. Aitken) raised a question about the disappearing "Canterbury Times". While I can understand that at this hour he is not taking a great interest in its disappearance, I can tell him that the information was given in good faith. I shall look into the question that arises.
If it is of interest to hon. Members, our notes indicate that the Canterbury newspaper concerned was a member of the Kent Messenger group. However, I should like to make it clear that there is no question of our statutory duty not having been discharged. The parliamentary question referred to was one of a batch, all from the same hon. Member, about my department's leaflet. The newspapers listed in that reply were those in which the leaflet was advertised. I apologise if there was a misunderstanding as to the name of the newspaper. I shall send to my hon. Friend a list of the newspapers in which we advertised.
My hon. Friend raised several matters all relating to the period from Second Reading, as did the hon. Member for Southwark and Bermondsey (Mr. Hughes). I believe that what is important is not the date of the Second Reading but when the advertisement is placed inviting people to petition. In this case that was done on 18 April.

Mr. Forth: Does my hon. Friend agree that if any considerable expenditure of resources were required by the individual in order to submit a properly presented petition, the individual might regard it as prudent to wait to see whether the House gave the Bill a Second Reading before proceeding to commit those resources? Does he agree that to expect a petitioner to embark on that exercise, which could be very costly, at the earlier date in advance of the Second Reading might be regarded as imprudent? Therefore, that would invalidate a large part of the argument that my hon. Friend is making.

Mr. Mitchell: I disagree with my hon. Friend because in the leaflet that we distributed we gave a simple illustration of how an ordinary individual could prepare a petition at no cost. That applies to the people who, in the view of my hon. Friend, might incur unnecessary expenditure. Groups of people have come together to brief legal advisers and the like; they are not private individuals but people with considerable resources at their disposal. In several cases substantial sums have been collected in the campaign against the Channel tunnel. Those groups have already done much of the work and are simply waiting for the right time at which to put in the documents. While I am not insensitive to the point that my hon. Friend has made, I do not think that it need cause us great concern.

Mr. Aitken: Before my hon. Friend dismisses the date of the Second Reading as being unimportant, may I suggest to him that an ordinary member of the public might have got confused—indeed, many hon. Members were confused — by the complicated nature of the dispute about whether the Bill had violated Standing Orders, what the Committee would say and so on? Therefore, it is reasonable to say in this instance at least, whatever

precedents there may have been, in the light of all the mystery and suspense created by the ruling, or non-ruling as it turned out to be, of the Standing Orders Committee, that the starting gun really fired on or about the date of Second Reading.

Mr. Mitchell: If my hon. Friend takes that view, I can only point out to him that a private Bill has only 10 days from Second Reading to closing. We published the advertisement on 18 April.
My hon. Friend the Member for Bristol, North-West (Mr. Stern) said that people may not have understood the procedure. I hope that I have been able to reassure him by the explanation that I have given about the leaflet that we produced. That too went out on 18 April at the same time as the advertisements were placed in national and local newspapers.

Mr. Stern: I take my hon. Friend's point that that procedure has been adopted in those areas most affected by the Bill. My point was that this is a national Bill and there are groups around the country that now realise that they are affected. I have not seen many copies of the leaflet in my constituency, although no doubt in Kent they are on virtually every doorstep. Nevertheless, I am not sure that the leafleting procedure is sufficient, given that my hon. Friend is effectively being asked to target on those groups without knowing who or where they are.

Mr. Mitchell: I understand my hon. Friend's point, but we have advertised in the national newspapers as well as in the local ones. By its very nature, those who are likely to petition against the Bill are those with a personal interest — in the non-normal sense of the word — and such people will be pretty rare in Bristol.

Mr. Bill Walker: In which Scottish newspapers were there advertisements? Since I last participated in the debate I have spoken to my wife, who has relatives in Kent who know nothing about the position.

Mr. Mitchell: There are Scottish regional newspapers, of course, but the national ones in which we advertised reach Scotland.
The House is grateful to my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Richmond, Yorks for the points that he made. The House will also recognise that, although it was the face of Richmond, the hand was that of Folkestone. Whatever face or hand it was, the Government have been persuaded by the argument. Therefore, I am happy to recommend that the House accepts my right hon. and learned Friend's amendment.

Mr. Speed: On behalf of my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Folkestone and Hythe (Mr. Howard) and myself, I thank my hon. Friend the Minister most warmly. The extra time that will be allowed will be welcomed by many of the small petitioners.

Mr. Mitchell: My hon. Friend the Member for Stafford (Mr. Cash) supported the case. I agree that petitions against alterations in the Bill are in order after the date, which would otherwise be a limiting factor. I bow to his legal knowledge in a number of the arguments he advanced, but I am sure that he would not take it amiss if I said that he was applying a degree of injurious affection to my head at this hour of the morning with some of the legality that he brought to the discussion.
My hon. Friend the Member for Thanet, South (Mr. Aitken), referred to a six-week period from Second


Reading to closing date in the 1974 Crosland Bill. In fact, that Bill, reintroduced under the Wilson Government. had its Second Reading on 30 April, and the closing date was 7 May, just one week later.
The second paragraph of the motion incorporates a closing date for petitioners. That date was debated at length on Tuesday night. The closing date of 17 June proposed by the Government allows eight weeks and four days from the publication of newspaper notices on 18 April. The intervale for the Channel Tunnel Bill in 1973 was exactly eight weeks. The Government have done rather better with the current Bill.
As I have already said, I am happy to accept the amendment proposed by my right hon. and leaned Friend the Member for Richmond, Yorks (Mr. Brittan), supported by my hon. Friend the Member for Thanet, South. That will allow the extra 10 days for individual petitioners. The Government expect that there will be many individual petitioners, but we are confident that the House authorities can cope. Of course, the Committee of Selection will decide when the Select Committee will hold its first meeting. However, I am confident that there will be a number of group petitions from part authorities, competing ferry companies, local authorities and environmental groups which the Committee can focus upon as soon as it is formed before it needs to consider points from individual petitioners which are liable to be received a little later.
The Government recognise that my right hon. and learned Friend's amendment would not, technically, allow husband and wife teams to petition jointly before 17 June. I do not think that that is a material drawback to his amendment. It is difficult to see where else the line could have been drawn to give the man in the street a little longer to present his petition without giving the same time to major organisations which we have not been convinced need that time.
I am happy to accept the amendment of my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Richmond, Yorks. It will allow individual petitioners three weeks from today before they need to submit their petitions. I submit that there is no case for delaying the closing date for petitions beyond that time, and I recommend that the House accept amendments (e) and (f).

Amendment (c) proposed, leave out '17th June' and insert '31st July'.—[Mr. Simon Hughes.]

Question put, That the amendment be made: —

The House divided: Ayes 2, Noes 146.

Division No. 209]
[7.12 am


AYES


Alton, David
Tellers for the Ayes:


Skinner, Dennis
Mr. Simon Hughes and



Mr. Paddy Ashdown.




NOES


Alexander, Richard
Bottomley, Peter


Amess, David
Bottomley, Mrs Virginia


Ashby, David
Bowden, Gerald (Dulwich)


Atkinson, David (B'm'th E)
Brandon-Bravo, Martin


Baker, Nicholas (Dorset N)
Brooke, Hon Peter


Baldry, Tony
Brown, M. (Brigg &amp; Cl'thpes)


Batiste, Spencer
Bruinvels, Peter


Best, Keith
Bryan, Sir Paul


Biffen, Rt Hon John
Burt, Alistair


Biggs-Davison, Sir John
Butler, Rt Hon Sir Adam


Blackburn, John
Butterfill, John


Blaker, Rt Hon Sir Peter
Cash, William


Boscawen, Hon Robert
Chope, Christopher





Clark, Dr Michael (Rochford)
Maude, Hon Francis


Colvin, Michael
Maxwell-Hyslop, Robin


Conway, Derek
Mayhew, Sir Patrick


Coombs, Simon
Merchant, Piers


Cope, John
Meyer, Sir Anthony


Cranborne, Viscount
Mills, Iain (Meriden)


Currie, Mrs Edwina
Mitchell, David (Hants NW)


Dunn, Robert
Moore, Rt Hon John


Durant, Tony
Moynihan, Hon C.


Fallon, Michael
Neale, Gerrard


Favell, Anthony
Nicholls, Patrick


Fenner, Mrs Peggy
Norris, Steven


Forsyth, Michael (Stirling)
Page, Richard (Herts SW)


Forth, Eric
Pattie, Geoffrey


Fox, Marcus
Pawsey, James


Franks, Cecil
Pollock, Alexander


Fraser, Peter (Angus East)
Portillo, Michael


Freeman, Roger
Powell, William (Corby)


Galley, Roy
Powley, John


Garel-Jones, Tristan
Rathbone, Tim


Glyn, Dr Alan
Renton, Tim


Gower, Sir Raymond
Rhys Williams, Sir Brandon


Gregory, Conal
Ridsdale, Sir Julian


Ground, Patrick
Roberts, Wyn (Conwy)


Hamilton, Hon A. (Epsom)
Roe, Mrs Marion


Hanley, Jeremy
Rowe, Andrew


Hargreaves, Kenneth
Rumbold, Mrs Angela


Harris, David
Ryder, Richard


Hawksley, Warren
Sackville, Hon Thomas


Hayes, J.
Sayeed, Jonathan


Hayward, Robert
Shepherd, Colin (Hereford)


Heathcoat-Amory, David
Sims, Roger


Hickmet, Richard
Speed, Keith


Hind, Kenneth
Spencer, Derek


Hogg, Hon Douglas (Gr'th'm)
Spicer, Jim (Dorset W)


Howard, Michael
Spicer, Michael (S Worcs)


Howarth, Gerald (Cannock)
Stern, Michael


Hunt, David (Wirral W)
Stewart, Andrew (Sherwood)


Hunter, Andrew
Stewart, Ian (Hertf'dshire N)


Jackson, Robert
Taylor, John (Solihull)


Jones, Gwilym (Cardiff N)
Thomas, Rt Hon Peter


Jones, Robert (Herts W)
Thornton, Malcolm


Jopling, Rt Hon Michael
Thurnham, Peter


Kellett-Bowman, Mrs Elaine
Townsend, Cyril D. (B'heath)


Key, Robert
Tracey, Richard


King, Roger (B'ham N'field)
Twinn, Dr Ian


Knight, Greg (Derby N)
Wakeham, Rt Hon John


Knowles, Michael
Walker, Bill (T'side N)


Lang, Ian
Waller, Gary


Lawler, Geoffrey
Wardle, C. (Bexhill)


Lawrence, Ivan
Warren, Kenneth


Lennox-Boyd, Hon Mark
Watson, John


Lloyd, Peter (Fareham)
Watts, John


Lord, Michael
Wells, Bowen (Hertford)


Lyell, Nicholas
Wolfson, Mark


McCurley, Mrs Anna
Wood, Timothy


McLoughlin, Patrick
Yeo, Tim


McQuarrie, Albert
Young, Sir George (Acton)


Malins, Humfrey



Malone, Gerald
Tellers for the Noes:


Marlow, Antony
Mr. Donald Thompson and


Mather, Carol
Mr. Tim Sainsbury.

Question accordingly negatived.

Amendment (d) proposed, leave out 'June' and insert `July'.—[Mr. Scott.]

Question put, That the amendment be made:—

The House divided: Ayes 8, Noes 145.

Division No.210]
[7.22 am


AYES


Alton, David
Skinner, Dennis


Ashdown, Paddy
Stott, Roger


Bennett, A. (Dent'n &amp; Red'sh)



Foster, Derek
Tellers for the Ayes:


Hamilton, W. W. (Fife Central)
Mr. Frank Cook and


Hughes, Simon (Southwark)
Mr. John McWilliam.






NOES


Alexander, Richard
Lord, Michael


Amess, David
Lyell, Nicholas


Ashby, David
McCurley, Mrs Anna


Atkinson, David (B'm'th E)
McLoughlin, Patrick


Baker, Nicholas (Dorset N)
McQuarrie, Albert


Baldry, Tony
Malins, Humfrey


Batiste, Spencer
Malone, Gerald


Biffen, Rt Hon John
Marlow, Antony


Biggs-Davison, Sir John
Mather, Carol


Blackburn, John
Maude, Hon Francis


Blaker, Rt Hon Sir Peter
Maxwell-Hyslop, Robin


Boscawen, Hon Robert
Mayhew, Sir Patrick


Bottomley, Peter
Merchant, Piers


Bottomley, Mrs Virginia
Meyer, Sir Anthony


Bowden, Gerald (Dulwich)
Mills, lain (Meriden)


Brandon-Bravo, Martin
Mitchell, David (Hants NW)


Bruinvels, Peter
Moore, Rt Hon John


Bryan, Sir Paul
Moynihan, Hon C.


Butler, Rt Hon Sir Adam
Neale, Gerrard


Butterfill, John
Nicholls, Patrick


Cash, William
Norris, Steven


Chope, Christopher
Page, Richard (Herts SW)


Clark, Dr Michael (Rochford)
Pattie, Geoffrey


Colvin, Michael
Pawsey, James


Conway, Derek
Pollock, Alexander


Coombs, Simon
Portillo, Michael


Cope, John
Powell, William (Corby)


Cranborne, Viscount
Powley, John


Currie, Mrs Edwina
Rathbone, Tim


Dunn, Robert
Renton, Tim


Durant, Tony
Rhys Williams, Sir Brandon


Fallon, Michael
Ridsdale, Sir Julian


Favell, Anthony
Roberts, Wyn (Conwy)


Fenner, Mrs Peggy
Roe, Mrs Marion


Forsyth, Michael (Stirling)
Rowe, Andrew


Forth, Eric
Rumbold, Mrs Angela


Fox, Marcus
Ryder, Richard


Franks, Cecil
Sackville, Hon Thomas


Fraser, Peter (Angus East)
Sainsbury, Hon Timothy


Freeman, Roger
Sayeed, Jonathan


Galley, Roy
Shepherd, Colin (Hereford)


Garel-Jones, Tristan
Sims, Roger


Glyn, Dr Alan
Speed, Keith


Gower, Sir Raymond
Speller, Tony


Greenway, Harry
Spencer, Derek


Gregory, Conal
Spicer, Jim (Dorset W)


Ground, Patrick
Spicer, Michael (S Worcs)


Hanley, Jeremy
Stern, Michael


Hargreaves, Kenneth
Stewart, Andrew (Sherwood)


Harris, David
Stewart, Ian (Hertf'dshire N)


Hawksley, Warren
Taylor, John (Solihull)


Hayes, J.
Thomas, Rt Hon Peter


Hayward, Robert
Thornton, Malcolm


Heathcoat-Amory, David
Thurnham, Peter


Hickmet, Richard
Townsend, Cyril D. (B'heath)


Howard, Michael
Tracey, Richard


Howarth, Gerald (Cannock)
Twinn, Dr Ian


Hunt, David (Wirral W)
Wakeham, Rt Hon John


Hunter, Andrew
Walker, Bill (T'side N)


Jackson, Robert
Wall, Sir Patrick


Jones, Gwilym (Cardiff N)
Waller, Gary


Jones, Robert (Herts W)
Wardle, C. (Bexhill)


Jopling, Rt Hon Michael
Warren, Kenneth


Kellett-Bowman, Mrs Elaine
Watson, John


Key, Robert
Watts, John


King, Roger (B'ham N'field)
Wells, Bowen (Hertford)


Knight, Greg (Derby N)
Wolfson, Mark


Knowles, Michael
Wood, Timothy


Lang, Ian
Yeo, Tim


Lawler, Geoffrey
Young, Sir George (Acton)


Lawrence, Ivan



Leigh, Edward (Gainsbor'gh)
Tellers for the Noes:


Lennox-Boyd, Hon Mark
Mr. Archie Hamilton and


Lilley, Peter
Mr. Donald Thompson.


Lloyd, Peter (Fareham)

Question accordingly negatived.

Amendment (e) made: after '17th June', insert

'or, in a case where the Petitioner is a single individual, at any time not later than 27th June'.—[Mr. Douglas Hogg.]

Amendment (f) made: after first 'Agents' insert—
That, notwithstanding the practice of the House that appearances on Petitions against an opposed Private Bill be required to be entered at the first meeting of the Committee on the Bill, in the case of any such Petitions as are mentioned in sub-paragraph (a) above which are not presented before the first meeting of the Committee, the Committee shall appoint a day after 27th June on which it will require appearances on those Petitions to be entered:—[Mr. Douglas Hogg.]

Main Question, as amended, put and agreed to.

Mr. David Mitchell: I beg to move,
That any Petitioner whose Petition stands referred to the Select Committee shall, subject to the Rules and Orders of the House and to the Prayer of his Petition, be entitled to be heard by himself, his Counsel or Agents upon his Petition provided that it is prepared and signed in conformity with the Rules and Orders of the House, and the Member in charge of the Bill shall be entitled to be heard by his Counsel or Agents in favour of the Bill against that Petition.
This paragraph is entirely standard form. It lays down that the standard rules for petitioners apply and it makes clear that they can be heard either by themselves or by their counsel or agents. I believe that this is very important. I made it clear on Second Reading that the Government would not oppose the locus standi of any reasonable petitioner.
I have nothing more to add to that. I suggest that the House is likely to wish to accept it at this point.

Question put and agreed to.

Mr. David Mitchell: I beg to move,
'That the Committee have power to sit notwithstanding any adjournment of the House, to adjourn from place to place within the United Kingdom, and to report from day to day the Minutes of the Evidence taken before it:'

Mr. Speaker: We shall consider at the same time amendment (g), after 'Kingdom', insert
'to send for persons, papers and records.'

Mr. Mitchell: This paragraph is not standard form. It contains two very important provisions that the Government consider—and I am sure the House will agree—especially apposite to the Bill. My hon. Friend the Member for Tiverton (Mr. Maxwell-Hyslop) has said, with some justification, that the Bill is unique, at least in recent years.
The first provision would allow the Committee to sit when the House was in recess, if it so desired, at the beginning of the recess, before its end, or even in the middle. In 1974, the Select Committee sat for just under six weeks. I hope that this year it will be possible for the Committee to complete its work within a reasonable time. Should the proceedings threaten to run beyond the end of the summer, it will be open to the Committee to make use of the provision and to sit for as long as it desires.
The second provision in the paragraph has been sought over the past year by many hon. Members and groups. It will give the Committee the authority, which otherwise it would not have, to visit, sit and take evidence in Kent or anywhere in the United Kingdom, should it wish to do so. In the 1974 proceedings of the Select Committee, the Committee decided to visit the sites concerned. This provision goes a little further because it allows evidence to be taken in the areas most directly affected, if the Committee so wishes.
I am sure that the House will recognise the need for both provisions. In moving them, I am responding to a considerable number of hon. Members who requested the provisions and sought assurances on that line.

Mr. Marlow: I notice that amendment (g)—I hope that my hon. Friend will cover it in a moment—which is in the name of the Leader of the Opposition, would enable the Committee
to send for persons, papers and records".
The great bulk of the amendments on the Order Paper, which have kept the House sitting all night, are in the name of the Leader of the Opposition, but I have not seen the right hon. Gentleman all night. As the Leader of the Opposition was responsible for keeping us up all night, I wonder whether, if the amendment allows for the Committee
to send for persons, papers and records,
the Committee would be entitled to send for the Leader of the Opposition. If so, and if the Committee sent for him, I wonder whether he would attend.

Mr. Speaker: Perhaps it is an appropriate moment for me to say that with amendment (g) we are considering amendments (j) and (aa).

Mr. Mitchell: I have nothing more to add at this point. I should be happy to respond when hon. Members have made any points they wish to raise.

Mr. Michael Brown: The debate is important because, if the motion were passed in its unamended form, we fear that the Select Committee would sit, notwithstanding the fact that the House may have adjourned some time in July. Earlier we considered the tremendous burden that will fall on nine unfortunate hon. Members who are to be selected—now that we have disposed of previous amendments—to serve on the Select Committee.

Mr. Harris: Drafted or press-ganged.

Mr. Brown: My hon. Friend, from a sedentary position, says "Drafted or press-ganged." I think that is an unfair slur on the honourable record of the Committee of Selection chaired by my hon. Friend the Member for Shipley (Mr. Fox), who I think on the whole does a magnificent job in trying to ensure that hon. Members are chosen for their skills, abilities, independence, impartiality and interests to deal with any Bill, whether private or public.
Great concern was expressed about the burden—the sheer volume of work — that will fall on nine unfortunate hon. Members. It has been said that many hon. Members will be ruled out — for instance, my hon. Friend the Member for Thanet, South (Mr. Aitken)—because they have some kind of constituency interest. That will apply to all hon. Members from Kent and any hon. Member who represents a port, as I do. I represent the port of Immingham. My county council is likely to petition against the Bill. Many hon. Members will be ruled out and this unfortunate duty will fall on nine out of a few hon. Members.

Mr. Forth: Will my hon. Friend give way?

Mr. Brown: I shall finish this point so that I can prove to you, Mr. Speaker, that I am absolutely within order. I have not been pulled up so far, during my short speeches, for being out of order. I intend to maintain that position until we conclude our debates.
The nine unfortunate Members will be heavily burdened with work from the day that they start. They, more than any other group of Members, will be looking forward to their summer recess, with some justification. The suggestion that they might have power to continue their sittings of the Committee, notwithstanding the fact that the House might have risen for the summer recess, is most unfortunate.

Mr. Forth: Will my hon. Friend add to the list of those who he feels are disqualified for membership of the Select Committee those who represent constituencies that are far inland and remote from the sea, a port or anywhere else that is involved? Will their distance from the project disqualify them on the ground that it reflects a lack of knowledge of the relevant issues as opposed to intimate connection?

Mr. Brown: If I were to respond to my hon. Friend's question, Mr. Speaker, I fear that you would rule me out of order. My hon. Friend has raised a subject that came within our consideration of amendments (a) and (b) and he should have addressed his request to me when I was contributing to the debate on those amendments. We are now concerned with whether it is right for the Select Committee to have power to be able to continue its sittings beyond the adjournment of the House.
I cannot believe that the nine members of the Committee will be volunteers. They will be selected—[HON. MEMBERS: "Press-ganged."] Perhaps that is unfair. They will be selected, probably against their will. However, they will undertake their duties—in the way that we all discharge the duties that are imposed upon us —with a spirit of good will, and they will have a right to adjourn for the summer recess in the same way as every other hon. Member.

Mr. Bill Walker: Will my hon. Friend bear in mind that any Members who are put on the Select Committee and who represent large rural constituencies normally use the summer recess to get round their constituencies. If they are unfortunate enough to be selected, they will require their summer recess more than anyone else.

Mr. Brown: That is true. Most hon. Members will probably have family responsibilities, and we shall all be in need of a holiday. If a Member has been considering petitions in the early days of the Committee's sittings, I shall be aware of the burden that he will incur because during the past three weeks I have been a member of the Committee that is considering a private Bill. I know how time-consuming it is for an hon. Member to serve on a Commmittee that is considering a private Bill, and those who are Members of the Select Committee will find that it is akin to a private Bill Committee.

Mr. Rowe: rose——

Mr. Brown: I hope that my hon. Friend will forgive me for not giving way. I want to make my remarks fairly brief. We are pressed for time and many of my hon. Friends wish to catch your eye, Mr. Speaker.
The unfortunate Members who will have to discharge their duties on the Select Committee will find that there is a backlog of constituency work to catch up with They will be tied up in a Select Committee from 10.30 am until 1 pm, and in the afternoon from 2.15 to 3.30, probably on Tuesdays, Wednesdays and Thursdays. They will find it difficult to discharge their other parliamentary duties in


between. By the time the Committee members have been sitting for three or four weeks, at the end of June and into July, they will be among the first to be entitled to look forward to an early summer recess.

Mr. Humfrey Malins: I am glad to have the opportunity to make a short contribution. Throughout the night I have listened, on and off —mostly off — to the contributions made by my hon. Friends. I have been struck by the passion, strength and merits of the arguments forcefully expressed by my hon. Friends who represent Kent constituencies. I cannot remember an occasion when a local issue has been so well argued by hon. Friends who represent areas close to their hearts. I congratulate them most sincerely.
When I have sat in a Committee upstairs, I have sometimes thought how nice it would be if the Committees of the House had the power to adjourn from time to time to various places within the United Kingdom. The Committee on the Channel tunnel would gain much by visiting the south-east of the country. It would be able to listen to people's views on the spot, and get the local flavour. It would be much easier to form impressions by travelling to the areas involved. My hon. and learned Friend the Member for Folkestone and Hythe (Mr. Howard), who has been present for every debate on the Channel tunnel, agrees wholeheartedly with that idea.

Mr. Ashby: Although I appreciate the importance of the Select Committee visiting the site of the proposed Channel tunnel on the south coast, should it not travel across the Channel to the Pas de Calais? It would be able to gauge the feeling there. Perhaps the Pas de Calais is still considered to be part of the United Kingdom and that is the explanation.

Mr. Malins: It would benefit the Committee in many ways to travel over the water to France.

Mr. Forth: Duty free.

Mr. Malins: Yes, indeed.
If the Select Committee Members were to travel around Kent, they would have a better chance to gauge local opinions, but the Committee's travels should not be limited to Kent. When the Channel tunnel comes into operation, it will have an impact further afield. You, Mr. Speaker, have the honour to represent a Croydon seat, as I do, and with the motorway links it is possible to travel from Croydon to the Kent coast in about an hour. Business and other interests in the south London area may have some comments to make on the Channel tunnel.
It is important for the Committee to be able travel to around Britain, especially in Kent, to gauge public feeling. The people of Kent have fine advocates in the House.

Mr. Marlow: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. My hon. Friend the Member for Croydon, North-West (Mr. Malins) raised an important point. We all regret the passing of Queen Mary——

Mr. Speaker: Order. I cannot gauge what Queen Mary has to do with me.

Mr. Marlow: A great deal, Mr. Speaker, because Calais is part of the United Kingdom's possessions, and I believe that nothing has been done to remove it from the

suzerainty and control of this House. Can you rule, Mr. Speaker, on whether, if the Committee wishes to go to Calais, it will have the same powers there as in the United Kingdom?

Mr. Speaker: If the Committee wants to go to Calais, that will be a matter for the Chairman, not for me.

Mr. Simon Hughes: If I may say so, that is more a matter for the Chairman than for Queen Mary.
My hon. Friend the Member for Isle of Wight (Mr. Ross) has always believed that the Select Committee can do its job effectively only if it is given powers to sit in the areas directly affected. For that reason, I support this motion.
There may be argument for the Committee to cross the Channel and look at the comparative effects on the other side, but it should not be an excuse for a jolly day out in the sun. When the Minister replies, I should be grateful if he would assure us that that will not be precluded by the wording of the motion, which relates only to the United Kingdom. Despite the ingenuity of the hon. Member for Northampton, North (Mr. Marlow), I doubt whether our possession of the Pas de Calais is sufficiently well recognised for it to be included in the motion. If France is to be visited, it should be included in the motion.
The specific reasons and concerns that prompt the request and desire that the Committee should visit Kent have been tabled through instructions or referred to elsewhere. First, there will be effects on the property and amenities of people immediately affected and on the economy in terms of jobs gained and lost. Those matters can be assessed, petitioned against and inquired into most appropriately in the areas immediately affected.
Secondly, there are environmental aspects of considerable importance in areas of outstanding beauty in Kent, about which there is great concern. Thirdly, there are specific matters that have been brought to the Government's attention in letters to the Departments of the Environment and Transport. They include the impact of the terminal at Cheriton, the ever-increasing loss of amenity because of traffic on local roads, spoil disposal, the impact of the new stretch of the M20 and the impact of consequential developments on the countryside in Kent, particularly warehousing, tourism and retail developments.
I know that the Minister is sensitive to those matters. I understand that the Government intend to make an opening statement, presumably when the Select Committee meets at Westminster. It would be helpful if the Minister would consider a more flexible procedure which would allow the Government to be cross-examined towards the beginning of the inquiry about matters relating to the opening statement which are also specific to the places which the Select Committee may decide to visit, rather than not allow petitioners to inquire into those matters. I hope that all those considerations will be included in the spirit and wording of the motion to allow the Committee to move around.
It is clear from the past 12 hours of debate that the Committee's timetable and responsibilities will be wide-reaching. It may be onerous for the hon. Members serving on it, but I am sure that the petitioners will feel that the Committee will be more responsive to its needs if it is seen to go to the people at least as often as the people are asked to go to it.

7. 55 am

Mr. Rowe: The hon. Member for Southwark and Bermondsey (Mr. Hughes) has been misled on two points. First, there is no reason to suppose that if the Select Committee goes abroad—for example, to Calais—it will do so on a sunny day. Secondly, the major part of the M20 that is under construction has nothing to do with the tunnel. It is part of the roads programme as originally planned.
While we are rightly concerned for those who will comprise the Select Committee, at the end of the day those who matter most are the petitioners. It is essential that they have every opportunity to present their case, to have it heard and to have the counter arguments presented in a form and within a time which will allow them to comment on and argue against them, if that is appropriate. Other considerations are secondary to that.
In view of the amount of work that the Select Committee will have to do, the House must ensure that its Members have the proper staff back-up to ensure that the grouping and sifting of petitions is done quickly. We are well served by the Clerk's Department, but this is a different scale of operation from any other Select Committee activity that we can envisage.
There will be a recurring need for the Government to put their case in response to petitioners. It will be helpful for the Government, as the proposers of the Bill, to make the opening case so that petitioners may know the arguments. After that, Ministers should be available to the Select Committee to respond on particular issues.

Mr. Simon Hughes: It would be helpful also if, once the Government have made the initial statement, an opportunity were provided for questions to be asked of members of the Government so that at an early stage unclear matters are clarified, thus avoiding the need for petitioners and others to wait until a later stage for issues to be cleared up.

Mr. Rowe: It will be for the Committee and its Chairman to decide such matters, but what the hon. Gentleman suggests seems sensible. The Government have said time and again that the Select Committee procedure gives at least as good an opportunity to explore matters as does a planning inquiry. I am happy to go along with that, provided we ensure that the Select Committee is given power to travel and is given the resources to enable petitioners to explore all the ramifications of this major proposal.

Mr. Cash: Standing Order No. 136, which is referred to on page 1011 of "Erskine May," has a considerable bearing on amendment (g). Considering that the Opposition tabled that amendment, it is astonishing that Labour Members have simply copped out by not turning up for this debate. I understood that they tabled the amendment in protest, as it were, against what my hon. Friends and I have been doing.
There must be many members of, and others sympathetic to, the Labour party living in Kent. They will be appalled to learn that Opposition Members have copped out by not being present to move the amendment.
Standing Order 136 provides:
By this order, first made in 1945, it is declared that a committee is not empowered, without express authority from the House, to hear evidence other than that which may be tendered by the parties entitled to be heard.

That would have been substituted by this amendment by enabling the Committee to send for persons, papers and records which would have significantly amplified the powers available to the Select Committee. I am in favour of the Bill.

Mr. Greg Knight: I am listening with interest to what my hon. Friend is saying. My instinct is to support amendment (g). Can my hon. Friend tell me what the position would be if the House were to pass amendment (g) and in due course, when the Committee sent for persons to appear, someone refused to appear? What sanctions will the Committee have? Amendment (g) is useless unless it has some teeth.

Mr. Cash: My hon. Friend raises an interesting point. The proceedings on a hybrid Bill are, in the main, the same as those for a private Bill and do not automatically attract the powers of a Select Committee. As I understand it, whereas a Select Committee would be able to require the attendance of a person, it may not be quite such a simple matter in relation to a private Bill. I defer to the judgment of those wiser than I am in these matters, because I might be wrong on that. By not including this provision, we are left, as would be the case with other private Bills, with the evidence that is presented exclusively by the parties in evidence. That is a point which ought to be made, though I notice that the Opposition are looking somewhat languid at this time of the morning.
I am not entirely clear about what was intended by amendment (j), which says:
'That in the proceedings before the Select Committee the obligations upon the Promoters of the Bill of presentation and proof shall conform to the procedures followed in Private Bills.'.
I have already said that that is what I would have expected and, as I understand it, that is the state of play. Amendment (aa) reads:
'That it be an Instruction to the Select Committee that it shall hear the evidence of Her Majesty's Government at the start of its proceedings in order to enable the Petitioners to respond thereto.'
I have some experience of private Bills and I have seen leading counsel engaging in some tactical manoeuvres which, without going into all the boring detail, preclude the other side from calling evidence. Such tactics are available to strategists at the parliamentary Bar and people would be disturbed if such things happened on this occasion. I sincerely hope that they do not.
As I said in the Select Committee, proceedings are conducted, in the main, in the same manner as those in a Committee on a private Bill. In 1948–49 the Select Committee on Hybrid Bills made some suggestions for improving the situation. Page 592 of "Erskine May" reads:
unless the House has given any instruction or indication to the contrary, the second reading is considered to remove from the promoters the onus of proving the expediency of the bill. The petitioner, therefore, opens to the committee, calling such evidence as he wishes. The promoters then answer the petitioner's case, and if they call evidence this entitles the petitioner to a right of reply. The procedure is, however, subject to the will of the commmittee and the requirements imposed by each bill.
It is worth pointing out that the instruction that is proposed in paragraph (aa)
That it be an Instruction to the Select Committee that it shall hear the evidence of Her Majesty's Government at the start of its proceedings in order to enable the Petitioners to respond thereto


is somewhat different from the proposals that I have just described and that are provided for under the existing Standing Orders.
The behaviour of the Opposition in putting down an amendment to the motion and abusing the procedure by not turning up seems to me to be negligence in the extreme. I hope that Labour party supporters in Kent are aware of the fact that some extremely valuable stategic advantages could have been obtained but that the Opposition have just let the whole thing slip. It is not merely negligence; it is downright incompetence.

Mr. Kenneth Hind: It is a matter of great importance to the people of this country that the Bill should be referred to a Select Committee.
Looking in pardment (bb), my recent experience as a member of the Select Committee on the Armed Forces Bill leads me to the view that it is very useful if a Select Committee is able to travel round the country. My hon. Friend the Member for Thanet, North (Mr. Gale) pointed out that there are 500 petitioners against the Bill in Kent alone. Therefore, it would be very useful if the Select Committee had the power to call for evidence and to hear witnesses. My hon. Friend the Member for Stafford (Mr. Cash) referred to the dangers of amendment (g), in that it would confer an open-ended power.
If this Select Committee were to be given the same powers as are enjoyed by the Select Committee on the Armed Forces Bill, which is appointed every five years, they would be found to be extremely useful. The Select Committee on the Armed Forces Bill went to the sites of military activity and found that very useful. In this case, the Select Committee would be able to visit compulsory purchase sites, or sites where transport infrastructure is to be provided for the Channel tunnel, talk to the people who will be affected and, if necessary, take evidence on site.
Wearing briefly my Member of Parliament for Lancashire, West hat, we should like the Committee to look in particular at the rail link between all the regions of the country—I refer particularly to Manchester and Liverpool—and the tunnel. We want to be able to send manufactured goods to Britain's most important market, the European Community, through the tunnel. Petitioners from the north-west region will no doubt ask the Select Committee to ensure that the infrastructure necessary to send containers by rail directly from the north-west through the tunnel is part of the structure plan.
We wish to make submissions to the Committee. We do not wish to be left out in the cold. Many of my constituents are worried about the fact that the major advantages of the tunnel will accrue mostly in the south-east. As it is nearer to the main markets, it will attract industry that will not go to the north-west. All that could be obviated if we had proper links and transport infrastructure connected to the tunnel, which would remove the advantages that the south-east would gain.
If the threat of fewer jobs in the port and ferry services of east Kent is realised, those changes in employment might result in the area seeking to become an assisted area and seeking Government grants. If it did, it would be competing with the north-west, where there is high unemployment and where assisted area status is important.

Mr. Greg Knight: I have listened to my hon. Friend's comments on amendment (g). I am still not entirely satisfied by his remarks or by the remarks of my hon. Friend the Member for Stafford (Mr. Cash). Will he give the House an assurance about the sanctions that the Committee may have in respect of sending for persons? If amendment (g) is passed and the Committee seeks to call a person to appear before it and that person refuses to come, what sanctions will the Committee have? That is a crucial point. It is no good telling the Committee that it has the power to send for persons if those persons can refuse to attend the Committee has no sanction against them.

Mr. Hind: I do not go as far as amendment (g). My hon. Friend is advocating that the Committee should have powers similar to those exercised by Select Committees, which can, within parameters, require anyone to give evidence to them and require papers and records. It is unnecessary in this case to have that much power, because the Committee will not be inquiring into the activities of Departments. This Committee is weighing up the objections by petition and amendment from outside bodies and, therefore, needs the power to require people to give evidence to it, and indeed to require the Department of Transport to give evidence to it. To some extent I agree with the spirit of amendment (g), but it is almost impossible in the circumstances to support it.
The Eurotunnel amendments are important, but I support wholeheartedly the principles of the paragraph and I urge my hon. Friends to do the same.

Mr. Aitken: Even at this late hour, we are doing a useful job by discussing the amendments, and I especially wish to ask my hon. Friend the Minister of State three important questions that arise from them.
We all recognise that it is in the best interests of the House and the country for the Select Committee to do a thorough job of scrutinising the Bill. So far, that job has not been done. The Government have failed lamentably, in the rushed job, to study the Bill line by line, and I shall prove that to my hon. Friend by asking him three questions which he may find difficult to answer because he may not have thought of the three problems. They might be better answered if the Committee had the power to send for persons or papers.
This is not just a hybrid Bill; it is a hybrid project. It is a joint effort between taxpayers' money and private money. I am a little suspicious of the degree to which about £1 billion of public money will be needed to support the infrastructure, as demanded increasingly in speech after speech on Second Reading, to further the commercial interests of Eurotunnel. In this respect, therefore, I think that the taxpayers' interest must be pursued and, if necessary, pursued by the Committee sending for persons and papers when appropriate.
Let me highlight one area on which I touched in the debate on Second Reading. I have reason to believe that there is already a small whiff of scandal emanating from deals that have been done by Eurotunnel in particular with the railways, with Eurotunnel possibly using its monopoly power to get a better price out of the railways than otherwise might have been possible. I say that on the following grounds. Before Eurotunnel was announced as the winner of the competition, all the bidders had


discussions with the railways. They all needed the railways to supply a service to them. Channel Expressway, for example, concluded a deal with the railways, SNCF and BR, to supply the rail service and British Rail and SNCF were to pay an annual subscription of between £56 million and £112 million a year. That was the Channel Expressway figure. A similar deal at very similar prices was done with Eurotunnel.
It would, therefore, be reasonable on a commercial judgment to expect that Eurotunnel's deal would be in the same price range. It is not in the same price range at all, we discover. I have evidence that suggests that the total price that the state railways, both financed by taxpayers' money, are now having to pay £140 million a year in annual subscription for the first year of operation, rising to £200 million. In other words, the railways are having to pay about £100 million more a year under Eurotunnel than they would have had to pay had Channel Expressway or Euroroute won the competition.
I suggest that the principal reason why the railways are having to pay much more is that Eurotunnel now finds itself in the monopoly bargaining position, and was able to extract from the railways a very high price through that monopoly power. The taxpayer is, in effect, giving an extra subsidy to the private business men of Eurotunnel. I think that the only way to reassure ourselves that this price is not excessive is by the Committee having the power to send for persons and papers and to ask them specific questions. When parliamentary questions are tabled on this subject, they are met with the customary wall—that this is a matter of commercial confidentiality. That answer really does not stand up as a serious and justifiable riposte.
Obviously the taxpayer has an interest if his railways are having to pay an annual subscription of £100 million or so a year more than the competitors would have expected from the railways. It is a large subsidy, and it is the taxpayer's money. We want to know on behalf of the taxpayer the precise details of all those contractual arrangements and the justification for them to make sure that an excessive charge is not being levied that will hit the taxpayer. This is a theme to which we will return again and again. If the Committee has the power to send for persons and papers, I suggest that that will facilitate it in its inquiry.
I give another example of how, if there is the power to send for persons and papers, in this case the ratepayer's money could be saved. In clause 12 of the Bill there is an indication, indeed a commitment, that the costs of policing the tunnel will be paid by the promoters. Kent police have done a great deal of work on what they think will be needed. Their estimate in broad terms is that a complete new subdivision of police should be located at the tunnel, to be given manpower at the normal rate for subdivisions of the Kent police—between 150 and 20P officers. That will be expensive because at 1985 prices a police officer costs £20,000 to £25,000 a year. According to the Bill, the cost of those police officers should be paid by the promoters. Whatever the Bill may say, it would be a sanguine man who would say that that price will be paid in full by the promoters.
I say that because there is a contradictory clause in the concession agreement to clause 12. I do not have the exact reference here, but in effect the clause in the concession agreement is a non-discrimination clause. The gist of it is that the promoters should not have to pay more than they

would have to pay to cover policing at another Channel port, such as Dover. I hear that there is already argument as to the justified policing level in the view of the Kent police, on the one hand, and of the promoters. on the other, the promoters using the non-discrimination clause in the concession agreement.
This is a most important dispute. It could result in a heavy bill having to be paid by the ratepayers of Kent for the police officers for whom the promoters say they will not pay. The Committee may have to act as a referee. If so, it would be enormously helped by being able to send for persons and papers.
I ask my hon. Friend the Minister of State to give an indication of the Government's thinking. I shall be most relieved if he can give a clear and decisive assurance that the cost of the police appointed by the Kent constabulary to look after the tunnel and its surroundings will not fall on the ratepayers of Kent, in which case there would be no need to send for persons and papers.
There is another small point on the policing of the tunnel. There is the possibility of almost emotive controversy about policing because of the juxtaposition of powers in the Bill. The Bill indicates that at frontier controls and customs and immigration the British authorities have the right to be on the French side, and the French police have the right to be on the British side.
An interesting and emotive point arises. Will there be armed French gendarmes standing on British soil? Neither the Kent police nor the Kent people would like to see that. The French authorities, who are entitled to say this, insist on their gendarmes being armed. The very word "gendarme" means an armed policeman. If there is to be a French right to keep a gendarme on British soil, the Committee may need to send for the head of the gendarmerie in Paris and may need to see the instructions and authority given to police officers in France about the circumstances in which they may use arms. That dispute may seem to be far-fetched, but it is potentially an emotional issue in Kent. It would be more easily resolved if the Committee had the power to send for persons and papers.
I have given my hon. Friend three examples of rows and arguments which could occur. The Committee might be assisted in solving those problems if it had the power to send for persons and papers and did not have to make a judgement without them.
The amendment also covers certain arrangements about how and when the Committee should sit. I put down an amendment which was not called; its gist was to try to ensure that Members of Parliament, members of the Committee, petitioners, their witnesses and their learned counsel all got a decent break and that the Committee should not sit until 1 September.
That was not a silly point; it was a point of substance, for two reasons. First, the petitioners genuinely need time to prepare their petitions. Secondly, parliamentary counsel feel that the Bill—

Mr. Speaker: Order. I hope that the hon. Gentleman does not intend to speak to an amendment that has not been called.

Mr. Aitken.: I shall take note of your guidance, Mr. Speaker, and conclude by saying that the Committee would be assisted by a decent break. I hope that my hon. Friend the Minister will agree that the Committee should take that point seriously.

Mr. John Watson: I shall be brief, because I wish to make a genuine contribution rether than one the main purpose of which is to pass the time.
A great deal of the debate has been concerned with the protection of minorities. I admire and defend the fortitude of my colleagues from Kent in their representation of the interests of the people of Kent, who they see as a minority. Understandably, my hon. Friends also feel that they are a minority in this House. However, there is another minority interest—those in Kent who are actually in favour of the tunnel.
Far be it from me to put myself forward as a champion of that view, but apart from being a Member of the House I am the chairman of a company in Kent that employs 168 people. I cannot speak for the employees, but I can speak for the management. We think that the tunnel is a good idea. It has been an unusual accident of history and geography that the economic centre of Britain over the past 20 years has not only come to the south-east of Britain, but to the western part of it. If there is a tunnel, there is a fair chance that much of the prosperity that has gone to my hon. Friend the Minister's constituency around Basingstoke might come to the part of Kent where my factory is located. I make my interests clear on that.
What worries me is that most of the elected representatives of Kent, whether Members of this Chamber, members of councils or members of chambers of commerce, share the opinion that the tunnel is a bad idea. Therefore, I fear that the minority opinion in Kent that is in favour of it might go unrepresented.
I find some relief in the setting up of the Committee if it has the power
to send for persons, papers and records.
If the evidence presented to it does not represent anything from the minority interest in Kent, I hope that it will not only have the power, but the inclination to use it, and will send for such "persons, papers and records" as may be necessary to defend the interests of those in favour of the Bill.

Mr. Peter Bruinvels: I shall be brief. I especially welcome paragraph 4 which outlines the delegated powers of the Committee. It can meet all over the United Kingdom. I am concerned that, by being given strong powers to interview, take evidence and look at the various ports, a substantial sum of money will be involved. I hope that my hon. Friend can give the House an estimate of the budget for the Committee to undertake that work.
There is no doubt that the Committee will sit outside the hours of sitting of this House, that witnesses will be called from many miles away and that much information will have to be collected. The sort of representation that some local industries may wish to put forward may result in substantial costs for witness fees, for counsel and for meetings in particular places, whether beside Canterbury cathedral, in the midlands or at one of the ports in Liverpool. If my hon. Friend the Minister can satisfy me on that point, I am sure that will reassure all hon. Members that it is worth while to establish such a Select Committee and that its role will result in a proper Channel Tunnel Bill being brought before the House for approval.

Mr. David Mitchell: It may be helpful if I suggest to the House how we might deal with the amendments before I respond to some of the points that have been made. The Government oppose amendment (g). The power
to send for persons, papers and records
is given to all House of Commons Departmental Select Committees — for example the Select Committee on Transport — to enable them to conduct inquiries on topics within their subject area. That power has never been given to Select Committees on hybrid Bills, because those Committees are charged only with hearing and deciding upon the cases made by petitioners. The function of this Committee is not to conduct a general investigation but to protect the rights of people affected by the project, which has now been approved in principle by the House on Second Reading.
I would now like to consider some quite extraordinary misconceptions on the part of my hon. Friend the Member for Thanet, South (Mr. Aitken). I am not sure whether my hon. Friend has his tongue in his cheek or whether he has really persuaded himslf of his own case. He alleged that the project is a joint effort of public and private money, and that £1 billion of taxpayers' money was involved. I am sorry to have to tell my hon. Friend that that is arrant nonsense. His make up of that colossal figure is partly the expenditure on roads, which would be undertaken anyway to meet the increasing proportion of people using the Kent roads to get to the ports and across to the continent. It is estimated that by the end of the century twice the present number of people will be travelling though the ports of Dover, Folkestone, Margate and Ramsgate. Would my hon. Friend expect there to be no expenditure on the infrastructure to enable those people to travel that way? Of course not. These projects are already programmed in the longer term projections of expenditure intended by the Department of Transport. My hon. Friend the Member for Thanet, South is completely wrong to take such huge sums into account.
My hon. Friend then turned his attention to British Rail and said that the expenditure projected with British Rail is taxpayers' money. That, too, is arrant nonsense. The £400 million for British Rail expenditure is money that is fully commercial in its operation. British Rail submitted a project for investment in the necessary equipment to operate the Channel tunnel. I am happy to say that we have a 7 per cent. discount rate which is our requirement, and it is above that figure. Therefore, the return is satisfactory and does not involve taxpayers' contributions.

Mr. Aitken: In a competition for talking arrant nonsense at this hour of the morning, on this topic at least, my hon. Friend the Minister of State would win if that was an example of his work, without my being in the race at all. Who does my hon. Friend think he is fooling by these curious remarks? The truth is that money spent on roads and railways is ultimately funded by the taxpayer. It is public money. It is sheer verbal sophistry to pretend that that money is going to be spent anyway and that it is a complete coincidence that money is being spent on roads in Kent on this scale. It is a bagatelle to suggest that these roads are suddenly to be modernised but that that would have happened anyway. I wonder who in Kent will believe that?
Of course, all public expenditure at some time may be spent on roads in some direction or other. The truth is that


these funds have at the very least been pin-pointed and accelerated. That would not have happened had it not been for the Channel tunnel. No one in the country, with the possible exception of a few in-house officials or Ministers, would believe the story that somehow public money is not involved on a big scale in the project. It clearly is. To suggest otherwise is, to use the Minister's own phrase, "arrant nonsense".

Mr. Mitchell: I do not want to involve myself in too much verbal fisticuffs with my hon. Friend at this hour, but British Rail money is not, as he alleges, coming from the taxpayer. I can tell him exactly where it is coining from. It is coming from the users. It is coming from the people who will pay very high fares to travel on those trains. That money will fully service the capital outlay with a margin over and above.

Mr. Aitken: Does my hon. Friend recall that only about a year ago the House voted £1 billion in extra grants to British Rail? The Minister is performing a conjuring trick in saying that he is not counting that as money which Parliament voted, which ultimately came from the taxpayer, but as money from tickets. British Rail's money is public money.

Mr. Mitchell: I am sorry to disabuse my hon. Friend, but the money to which he is referring was the public services obligation. That money is paid to British Rail for conducting loss-making services which it would not conduct if it were a commercial organisation. This is not a loss-making service. It is a fully commercial and profitable service and it is only on that basis that I have approved the outline capital expenditure that British Rail wishes to undertake.

Mr. Gow: I am trying to follow my hon. Friend. I should be grateful if he would assist some of my hon. Friends who heard him say a moment ago that the cost of the new railway lines and rolling stock will be paid for out of the very high fares that will be paid by passengers. Will not the new lines and new rolling stock have to be provided before those higher fares are paid? Could my hon. Friend, who is one of the disciples of Dr. Johannes Witteveen, explain to my hon. Friend the Member for Thanet, South (Mr. Aitken), to me and to my hon. Friend the Member for Leicester, East (Mr. Bruinvels), who represents a constituency further north than the county of Kent, how we can obtain the fares before we have the railway lines and the rolling stock?

Mr. Mitchell: Yes, I can explain to my hon. Friend. I do not want to enter into a dialogue with him now on the subject of discounted cash flow, but as a former Treasury Minister he will be fully aware of that concept. The Treasury requirements in respect of having no element of subsidy and being fully commercial have been met. I am not sure whether they were met at the time that he was at the Treasury when he benignly nodded approval, just as he is benignly smiling at the moment, but he will be well familiar with the concept. I assure him that not only did it comply with that concept at the minimum level but it was above it. Therefore, he can be fully reassured on that score.
My hon. Friend the Member for Thanet, South can blow as hard as he likes, but everybody in Kent knows that Kent has been clamouring for years for the gap in the M20 to be filled, and that is one of the major expenditures. My

hon. Friend the Member for Ashford (Mr. Speed) has been campaigning for that. He knows perfectly well that that is in the Department's long-term programme. It will be completed within the time scale in which it would otherwise have been completed and it will fit into the traffic pattern that is required.

Mr. Gow: rose——

Mr. Gale: rose——

Mr. Speaker: To which hon. Member is the Minister giving way?

Mr. Mitchell: I give way to my hon. Friend the Member for Eastbourne.

Mr. Gow: When my hon. Friend said that everyone in Kent had been clamouring for the new road, did he include in that company my right hon. Friend the Member for Old Bexley and Sidcup (Mr. Heath)?

Mr. Mitchell: My hon. Friend is, as always. very shrewd in assessing any weakness in the argument of those whom in his legal career he has cross-examined in court on many occasions. I have to admit that I was referring to those people in the part of Kent which is affected by the existing road system and who are anxious to see the improvements.

Mr. Gale: There is absolutely no doubt that my hon. Friends the Members for Thanet, South (Mr. Aitken) and for Canterbury (Mr. Crouch) have been clamouring for the Thanet way for years and years. The one road in east Kent which really does matter is the road that is not getting any attention at all.

Mr. Mitchell: I will not debate that point with my hon. Friend now. I shall simple say that the traffic flows or. the M20 are somewhat greater than those on the Thanet way.
My hon. Friend the Member for Thanet, South also alleged that Eurotunnel has pressurised British Rail into giving a concessionary charge. He almost suggested that something improper had happened. British Rail has done a commercial deal. It is signed and sealed, at a profit for British Rail, and forms the basis for the investment submission. My hon. Friend can be reassured that there is no skulduggery such as he sought to suggest.
Amendments (j) and (aa) have a somewhat similar purpose to amendment (g), but there is no justification, as some hon. Members have proposed, why the rule applicable to private Bills, which the private promotors of the Bill make the case for before the Select committee, should apply to this public Bill. The scope of the Bill is much wider than the project to be undertaken by Eurotunnel because it includes British Rail works and the extension of the A20. Apart from that, the Channel tunnel project is a public project for the benefit of the country as a whole and it is Government policy, now endorsed by the House, that it should proceed.
Government counsel will, with the leave of the Committee, be opening proceedings in the Committee with a general scene-setting statement. It will then be for the Committee to decide how to proceed. The purpose of the opening statement will be to explain the project and the works, not to justify the Bill, which has, in principle, already been given a Second Reading and accepted by the House in an historic vote last night.

Mr. Simon Hughes: I deduce from the Minister's answer to my amendment that he does not preclude the


possibility that, after the statement, to which all petitioners will look forward, there may be an opportunity, although it lies with the Committee to decide, for questions appropriate to that statement to be asked before the petitioners put their case to the Committee.

Mr. Mitchell: I would not want the hon. Gentleman in any way to belittle the importance either of the decision made on Second Reading to accept the principle that the tunnel should proceed or of petitions which will be concerned with the interests of people who will be directly affected. I think those sort of criteria will decide what is or is not appropiate for the Select Committee to consider.

Mr. Cash: rose——

Mr. Mitchell: My hon. Friend the Member for Mid-Kent (Mr. Rowe) raised the question of staffing for the Committee. He is right to draw attention to the fact that there will be a work load involved. It is a matter for the House authorities, not for me.
Several hon. Members stressed the importance of the Committee getting out into Kent and other parts of the country. My experience with the Joint Consultative Committee, which has met in Kent, is that that is the most effective way to get to know what is going on.
My hon. Friend the Member for Skipton and Rippon (Mr. Watson) referred to those who wish to petition in favour of the Bill and those who wish to make their support for the Bill known in Kent because of the jobs that will be created as a result of it. I think that it is worth recording that the Kent Export Association says:
the Channel tunnel is a major way of stimulating Britain's export potential. It will bring about a major improvement of business potential in the County and give a much needed fillip to the industrial infrastructure of Kent.
There are quite a lot of people in Kent whose voices have not perhaps been heard at this stage, but there are still many people in Kent who are interested in the jobs that the tunnel can bring. Even those who are unemployed in areas of high unemployment, such as the constituency of my hon. Friend the Member for Thanet, South, may look with slight jaundice at his opposition to the tunnel when they see the jobs that will be created in the ports over the next two years as the construction proceeds. I hope that he will feel suitably embarrassed when the time comes.

Question put and agreed to.

Mr. Mitchell: I beg to move,
That three be the Quorum of the Committee.

Mr. Speaker: With this, it will be convenient to debate Amendments (h) and (i).

Mr. Mitchell: This sentence merely lays down the quorum of the Committee as being three of its members. This closely follows the conventions. "Erskine May" says that a quorum is usually fixed at three where the Committee consists of 11 members or fewer. Hon. Members will recall from the early hours of this morning that it was decided that the membership of the Committee considering the Bill should be set at nine, which we consider to be the right size. We hope that more than three hon. Members will choose to attend the Committee's proceedings. However, we do not consider that there is a case for departing from the established proportions. I hope that the House will accept that.

Mr. Eric Forth: I pay tribute to my hon. Friend the Minister, who, throughout the long proceedings, has responded to the contributions of hon. Members with unfailing patience, humour and courtesy. I am delighted to be able to put that on record. We all appreciate the way in which he has handled this sometimes difficult and certainly lengthy debate.
We come now to the last paragraph of the motion concerning a not unimportant matter, the quorum of the Committee. At the outset I took refuge in the Oxford dictionary to establish what the word "quorum" meant, so as to establish a frame of reference. The definition is straightforward. It is:
A fixed number of members of any body … whose presence is necessary for the proper or valid transaction of business.
When we come to the precedents available to us in the House, the matter becomes slightly more complex. We have before us several precedents covering a number of different types of Committee, which do slightly different work. For example, "Erskine May" says on page 674:
The quorum of all standing committees except the Scottish Grand Committee is seventeen or one third of the number of its members, excluding the chairman, whichever is the less".
The quorum of a Select Committee is set out on page 692. It is
fixed by the House in reference to each particular case, and if no quorum has been fixed, the committee cannot transact business unless all the members are present.
The guidance goes on in some detail, most of which I was going to give to the House, but I shall not do so in view of the late hour. Suffice it to say that considerable flexibility is allowed for the quorum for Select Committees. We should pay attention to this, because my hon. Friend the Minister was right to look to precedents for the Committee. I wanted to use this example to illustrate that it is by no means a foregone conclusion that the quorum of a Committee should necessarily be set at three. The matter becomes yet more important if we move on to consider the provisions for the Committee on Unopposed Bills, for example, where the quorum of the Committee is set at three.
On the other hand, if we consider the hybrid Bill procedure, we get into much more interesting territory. There is provision in some Committees, and some cases before the House have given rise to difficulty, where proceedings cannot be allowed to go on when more than one member is absent. That points us in a completely different direction and leads us to question whether a quorum of three, as provided for in the motion, will be sufficient for a Bill of the complexity that we have come to realise in the past few hours.
We are dealing with matters that are quasi-legislative or quasi-judicial. They are controversial matters. We are certainly dealing with a Bill where much evidence and material will be put before the Commiteee. I wish to put the first part of my argument about the adequacy of a quorum of three upon that basis.

Mr. Lawrence: Perhaps my hon. Friend could help us with one of the problems which are likely to arise and which we have canvassed during the night. It will be difficult for the nine members of the Committee, as we have now agreed, to acquaint themselves with details of the various petitions and to travel around the country, and possibly to France. There will be real difficulty in getting


a quorum of three who will be those best briefed on the particular matters. I would be grateful if my hon. Friend would apply his mind to that problem. as it is bothering all of us.

Mr. Forth: I am grateful to my hon. and learned Friend. With his typical incisiveness, he has pre-empted a matter with which I wanted to deal. Suffice it to say that this is part of the problem of the quorum of three. I hope that the Minister has an open mind on the matter. Perhaps he would give thought to the extent to which a quorum of three would be able to cover the complexity and breadth and depth of the matters, especially where the Committee may intinerant, with changes in the members available from which to form a quorum. At that time the matter becomes even more crucial and important.

Mr. David Ashby: My hon. Friend will know that I had hoped to speak but have not done so because of the lateness of the hour. I am grateful to him for giving way.
My great interest is in the civil liberties aspect of the measure. Has my hon. Friend considered the fact that the quorum is so low that it will create an injustice, as so many petitioners wish to give evidence? The same people will not be hearing the evidence. They will only read it and will not be able to see the people concerned. They 'will not visit the places that will be affected. The quorum is too low. That affects civil liberties and it will cause injustice.

Mr. Forth: I am grateful to my hon. Friend. The point that we have reached in these proceedings illustrates the fact that the matter requires all the time that can be given to it.
I am indebted to my hon. Friends and to you, Mr. Speaker. I shall not prolong my remarks, although I regret that, because the matter that we are debating is of equal importance with the others.
I shall be interested to hear the Minister's view, as will my hon. Friends who have intervened, on whether a quorum as low as three will be sufficient to carry and sustain the breadth and depth of material that the Select Committee will be required to consider. Will he consider the point that the Committee will meet in different places and that there will therefore be great pressure on the Committee members? Many hon. Members have emphasised that Committee members will have considerable other commitments. They will already be under stress and strain and may have to sacrifice some of the recess.
In view of those factors, as well as the fact that they will have to deal with technical matters and legal complexities, and also matters environmental, all of which will be controversial, it is vital that the quorum of the Committee is set at a level sufficiently high to reflect and deal with their complexity. My plea to my hon. Friend is that he considers the amendment in my name and in the names of other hon. Members to raise the number of the quorum, because five members would be in a better position to handle the matter and to discharge the work of the Committee effectively, rather than place an inordinate strain on what may be only three members forming a quorum of the Committee at any one time. I hope that my hon. Friend will be able to give some words of encouragement to us and to move some little way in helping us in that respect.

Mr. Simon Hughes: I endorse the request made to the Minister of State by the hon. Member for Mid-Worcestershire (Mr. Forth). It is clear that there is a great keenness that people with special competence in technical and other areas are represented on the Committee. It is also clear that the Committee will have a large amount of work to do. I think that in the interests of justice and fairness, which is the theme of tonight's efforts to get the procedure as acceptable as possible, it is desirable that the quorum for such a unique, exceptional, wide-ranging and far-reaching Bill, in terms of its local and national impact, should be higher rather than lower. The figure of five would seem to be an acceptable compromise.
The Minister will be aware that people who do not turn up before Select Committees are summoned to do so, and are reported to the House. Select Committees are not committees at which people do not normally attend. We could protect the interests of the Committee, the reputation of the House and the concerns of the petitioners by upping the quorum level to five, if not to six. I ask the Minister to be responsive and positive to the amendment tabled in the names of the hon. Member for Mid-Worcestershire and others.

Mr. David Mitchell: I am sorry to disappoint my hon. Friend the Member for Mid-Worcestershire (Mr. Forth), but I must say to him that the quorum of three members proposed by the Government follows the convention established by "Erskine May". I quote from page 692:
The quorum of a select committee is fixed by the House in reference to each particular case, and if no quorum has been fixed, the committee cannot transact business unless all the members are present.
The quorum is usually fixed at three when the committee consists of eleven members or less".
In this case, the number of members is as low as nine. It is well inside the figure of 11. Three is the normal quorum for a hybrid Bill. Naturally, the Government hope that more than three Members will be present on what undoubtedly will be an important. interesting and historic Committee.
However, in view of the problems experienced earlier in the Session regarding the Felixstowe Dock and Railway Bill, the Government consider that it would be undesirable to establish a quorum larger than the norm. The risk is that having an over-large quorum could stultify the work of the Committee, because it might enable those on the Committee who were not in favour of the tunnel to bring its work to a halt by not attending the Committee. I hope that my hon. Friend will accept that the pattern we are suggesting is the right one.
The Government are firmly opposed to amendments (h) and (i).

Question put and agreed to.

Ordered,
That the Bill be committed to a Select Committee of nine Members to be nominated by the Committee of Selection.

Ordered,
That there shall stand referred to the Select Committee—

(a) any Petition against the Bill presented by being deposited in the Private Bill Office at any time nor. later than 17th June, or, in a case where the Petitioner is a single individual, at any time not later than 27th June, and
(b) any Petition which has been presented by being deposited in the Private Bill Office and in which the


Petitioners complain of any amendment as proposed in any Petition against the Bill or in the filled-up Bill or of any matter which has arisen during the progress of the Bill before the said Committee,

being a Petition in which the Petitioners pray to be heard by themselves, their Counsel or Agents:
That, notwithstanding the practice of the House that appearances on Petitions against an opposed Private Bill be required to be entered at the first meeting of the Committee on the Bill, in the case of any such Petitions as are mentioned in sub-paragraph (a) above which are not presented before the first meeting of the Committee, the Committee shall appoint a day after 27th June on which it will require appearances on those Petitions to be entered.

Ordered,
That any Petitioner whose Petition stands referred to the Select Committee shall, subject to the Rules and Orders of the House and to the Prayer of his Petition, be entitled to be heard by himself, his Counsel or Agents upon his Petition provided that it is prepared and signed in conformity with the Rules and Orders of the House, and the Members in charge of the Bill shall be entitled to be heard by his Counsel or Agents in favour of the Bill against that Petition.

Ordered,
That the Committee have power to sit notwithstanding any adjournment of the House, to adjourn from place to place within the United Kingdom, and to report from day to day the Minutes of the Evidence taken before it.

Ordered,
That three be the Quorum of the Committee.

Channel Tunnel [Money]

Queen's Recommendation having been signified—

Motion made, and Question proposed,
That, for the purposes of any Act resulting from the Channel Tunnel Bill, it is expedient to authorise—
(1) the payment out of money provided by Parliament of any sums required to meet expenditure incurred by the Secretary of State—

(a) in making payments for land vested in or acquired by him under that Act;
(b) for the purpose of or in connection with the discharge by the Intergovernmental Commission or the Safety Authority of their functions under the Treaty;
(c) by virtue of provisions of that Act authorising the Secretary of State, in certain circumstances, to maintain the tunnel system if construction stops before it is completed, or (as the case may be) to manage, operate and maintain the tunnel system or such part of it as it is practicable to operate up to the end of the period of three months beginning with the date of the expiry or termination of the Concession;
(d) in making payments for the purpose of restoring any land in pursuance of that Act;
(e) for the purpose of or in connection with the construction of the A20 improvement works;
(f) in making any payments of compensation that fall under any provision of that Act to be made by him; and
(g) in meeting any obligations or exercising any rights to which he is or from time to time becomes subject or entitled in pursuance of the Treaty or the Concession, being obligations or rights arising in connection with the tunnel system;

(2) the payment out of money provided by Parliament of any increase attributable to that Act—

(a) in the sums payable out of money so provided under any other enactment; and
(b) in the administrative expenses of any government department;

(3) The payment of any sums into the Consolidated Fund; and in this Resolution expressions to which a meaning is given for the purposes of any Act resulting from the Channel Tunnel Bill have the same meaning as in that Act.—[Mr. Peter Lloyd.]

9 am

Mr. Michael Brown: I am sorry to detain the House and I shall try not to be too long, especially in view of the horoscope which appears in today's Daily Mail for my birthday sign, which I shall read briefly without, I hope, incurring your wrath, Mr. Speaker. It states:
It is difficult to know where to place your energy today. If you meet unexpected hazards then prepare for delays. Do not try to have an early night.
I shall try to follow precisely the last part of that advice.
There is one slightly worrying aspect of the money resolution to which I should like to draw the attention of my hon. Friend the Minister of State. Subsection (1)(c) states;
by virtue of provisions of that Act authorising the Secretary of State, in certain circumstances, to maintain the tunnel system if construction stops before it is completed, or (as the case may be) to manage, operate and maintain the tunnel system or such part of it as is practicable to operate up to the end of the period of three months beginning with the date of the expiry or termination of the Concession;
My worry, bearing in mind the assurances that we have received on many occasions from my right hon. and hon. Friends to the effect that the tunnel is to be constructed out of private funds — something which is much to be welcomed — lies with paragraph (c), where it is suggested that, in the event of the private companies being


unable to complete the tunnel, the Government would be given powers under the money resolution to pick up the tab. It has been stressed to us throughout the debate, both inside and outside the House, that the financing of the Channel tunnel will come from private funds.
Those who want to see the Bill enacted, which the Government do, and the tunnel constructed and brought to fruition want to ensure that the companies have sufficient resources to enable them to complete the project without having recourse to public funds. There is an intimation in paragraph (c), however, that the companies may not have the financial resources to do that and may find themselves faced with the prospect of having to stop constructing the tunnel if they are unable to raise sufficient funds over the construction period. In those circumstances, public moneys would have to be directed to the project. I hope that my hon. Friend will take up these issues when he replies.

Mr. Greg Knight: One way round the problem would be for the companies concerned to be obliged to enter into an insurance bond so that if any difficulties arose, moneys—not public moneys—would be available to maintain the tunnel.

Mr. Brown: I feel sure that the companies will try to do precisely that. I should like to know whether the Government have considered the possibility that, notwithstanding any insurance bonds that the companies might take out, there could be the possibility under paragraph (c) of a failuere and the Government having the power to pick up the tab.

The Secretary of State for Transport (Mr. John Moore): I hesitate to intervene, but in so far as my hon. Friend is addressing himself to the money resolution and my hon. Friend the Minister of State is about to respond, he might care to agree with me—I am sure that most hon. Members will — that we have had most extraordinary and outstanding contributions of exceptional courtesy from my hon. Friend the Minister of State throughout this long series of debates and a display of great stamina.

Mr. Brown: I agree with that absolutely. My hon. Friend the Minister of State has responded fairly and with great patience to all of our legitimate concerns. Whatever view we may take on these issues, we are all most grateful to him. This has been an important series of debates, and we end on an important debate. I am delighted to associate myself with the comments of my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State. I should be grateful if my hon. Friend the Minister would direct his thoughts to the points that I have raised.

Mr. Kenneth Hind: With regard to the financing of the Channel tunnel project, it is important to emphasise that it will be built with private money and with no contributions from the state. Our deliberations on the money resolution are limited to the essentials of any Government Department overseeing this type of scheme, the purchase of land and the financing of the safety authority. My hon. Friend the Member for Brigg and Cleethorpes (Mr. Brown) mentioned financing the tunnel to ensure that it is managed, operated and maintained for a period should construction come to a halt.
My hon. Friend also raised the possibility of some form of bond. If because of heavy costs or unforeseen

engineering difficulties the whole of the burden of the programme was thrust upon the taxpayer, the one thing which the invitation of funding from the private sector sought to avoid would occur. I am sure that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State and the Minister of State are considering that matter and will ensure that the public interest is properly protected.
On behalf of my colleagues, I echo the Secretary of State's comments and I thank the Minister for his unfailing courtesy in his dealings with us throughout the night.

Mr. Mitchell: I can well understand that my hon. Friends are in a state of perplexity about the money resolution, because, after all, we had spent many long hours here saying that there would be no public expenditure involved in the construction of the tunnel. It is understandable if hon. Members wonder why the money resolution is required.
The principal reason for the resolution is that we have included in the project the building of the extension of the M20/A20 from Folkestone halfway to Dover. My right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Dover (Mr. Rees), who has participated so much in our debates on the matter, is familiar with the importance of the road. It is the bypass for Capel-le-Feme and is of crucial importance in view of the amount of traffic which is likely to be generated during construction. Apart from that, as I have mentioned to my hon. Friend the Member for Thanet, South (Mr. Aitken) on many occasions, ferry traffic will continue to increase between now and 1993 when the tunnel opens. For that reason, it is important that the extensions be carried out to enable traffic to get to Dover using the M20 and to Folkestone and its ferry services.

Mr. Hind: Will my hon. Friend consider the question of safeguarding the public interest should the Eurotunnel consortium find itslf in financial difficulties or should the public be faced with an enormous bill for completing and maintaining the tunnel? Will he consider ways of safeguarding the public interest, perhaps through a bond or insurance policy? What does he have in mind?

Mr. Mitchell: I will help my hon. Friend, who has asked about two precise circumstances: what happens if the company fails before construction is complete, or after it is complete. If the project fails during construction—clause 25 deals with this—the Government will be able to maintain the works. That is not as extraordinary as it sounds because that is exactly what we have done with the old 1973 workings.

Mr. Bill Walker: Will my hon. Friend advise the House whether, if the company developing the tunnel is unable to complete the work and the Government must intervene with public money, the Government are in effect nationalising and taking over the tunnel?

Mr. Mitchell: I can reassure my hon. Friend on that score, and it is perfectly understandable that he should take that view. If the project fails and the lenders do not find another concessionaire to complete, it will be mothballed. The equity interest put in by the participating shareholders will be lost. In that case, a receiver would undoubtedly be appointed on behalf of the lenders, and he would seek to find an alternative concessionaire to complete the tunnel.
The premise on which the Government have supported the project is that we are satisfied that the financial requirements laid on the concessionaire will ensure that completion can take place without any risk that it cannot.
The event of the project failing after it is complete is covered by clause 26. The Government will be able to operate it for three months, the concessionaires will not benefit from that, and the Government will take the revenues from road and rail traffic. Moreover—this is important to the point about nationalisation—this power is conditional on clause 27, in that it can be used only if the Secretary of State is satisfied that there is a reasonable prospect of a new concession being negotiated in the near future. If he is not so satisfied, there will be no attempt to continue the operation.

Mr. Albert McQuarrie: It cannot be overstressed that the Government have investigated the financial provisions for the tunnel so thoroughly that there is almost no possibility that the venture will fail. Therefore, any comments on the possibility of failure are purely hypothetical and extremely unlikely.

Mr. Mitchell: My hon. Friend is putting into my mouth somewhat more than I said. It is for the promoters to satisfy the investors that the project is viable and that the investors should put their money into it. The investors include Japanese and other foreign sources, pension funds, City institutions and the like. The Government do not give an imprimatur which gives a Government guarantee, Government audit, or Government certification that the project is viable.
It is for the promoters to persuade the investors, just as any promoter in any other private project would have to persuade investors before the money could be raised for the project to go ahead. We would not have reached this point if we thought that the promoters were unable to persuade the investors of that. The promoters still have to do that and the matter should not be taken for granted.

Mr. David Harris: My hon. Friend has allayed our fears about nationalisation on this side of the

Channel, but has he considered the possibility, remote as it might be, that, in the event of failure after completion, the French Government will step in and nationalise the whole enterprise from their end? Has it crossed the mind of my hon. Friend what his reaction would be in that hypothetical situation?

Mr. Mitchell: The company structure and the agreements between us and the French could not allow that situation to arise. The administrative costs of the two Governments would be covered by a single annual payment of 3 million ECUs—about £2 million—shared equally between the United Kingdom and France. In practice, the cost of the inter-Government commission and the safety authority would be variable from year to year. If the project fails and the sites have to be restored, the cost will fall on the Government, but the Government will have a claim on the material of the tunnel system to set against that cost. I hope that that reassures my hon. Friends.

Mr. William Cash: Does my hon. Friend agree that this important debate has been conducted on a serious note and that the Opposition have not been here? The press should note that we have been debating this seriously throughout the night and the Opposition have been asleep the whole time.

Mr. Mitchell: Before the debate started last night, there was some talk of a waffle debate to take up time. What has become increasingly apparent throughout the debate is the serious way in which the House has addressed itself to the important and detailed matters of the Channel tunnel project and the arrangements for the Select Committee. The House will feel that, with the passing of the money resolution, which I now recommend to hon. Members, a good night's work has been done for the benefit of the country as a whole.

Question put and agreed to.

PUBLIC ACCOUNTS

Ordered,
That Mr. Secretary Moore be discharged from the Committee of Public Accounts and Mr. Norman Lamont be added to the Committee.—[Mr. Cope.]

Shipbuilding and Shiprepairing Industries (Southampton)

Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. Durant.]

Mr. Christopher Chope: I am grateful for the opportunity to raise the problems of the shipbuilding and shiprepair industries in Southampton. These industries currently provide employment for several thousand people, although sadly several thousand jobs have been lost over recent years. They play a vital role in the community. Those who work in these industries in Southampton have served the nation well. I do not wish to set out a long list of achievements, but it is worth remembering how, only about four years ago, all the stops were pulled out by people working in the shiprepair industry in Southampton to prepare the task force for the Falklands.
The successful privatisation last year of Vosper Shiprepairers and Vosper Thornycroft has ensured that the dark days of nationalisation are now in the past. In those days, as fast as Vosper Thornycroft made profits on its warship building, much of it from exports, those profits were creamed off and used to prop up surplus merchant shipbuilding capacity in loss-making yards. Employees in Southampton felt frustrated as their pay was held down by national negotiations. They were victims of drift as British Shipbuilders delayed its difficult decisions and jeopardised the profitable parts of its industry. I despair that the Labour party still believes that the profitable warship yards should be used to sustain the loss-making merchant yards. However, that is what the right hon. and learned Member for Monklands, East (Mr. Smith) said in as recent a debate as that which was held on 21 May last.
The problems of Vosper Thornycroft (UK) Ltd. are the ones to which I should particularly like to refer. I am very pleased that my hon. Friend the Member for Eastleigh (Sir D. Price) is here, because the main works are in his constituency. although it is fair to say that the majority of its employees are my constituents. Since privatisation in November 1985 Vosper Thornycroft has been employing about 1,700 people in Southampton. It is unique among British warship building yards, in that it supports a strong export effort and has consistently obtained about half of its work load from exports. Its exports in the last five years total about £240 million, and its current export work is valued at £90 million. It includes fast strike craft for Kenya and Oman, refits for Indonesia, simulators for Spain and worldwide orders for stabilisers.
Over recent years, however, Vosper Thornycroft's greatest success has been in its development and production of glass reinforced plastic mine counter-measure vessels. About three quarters of the Southampton work force are directly or indirectly engaged on these projects. It has been the lead yard for the Hunter class and has received orders for 11 of the 13 vessels in that class, the last one of which is nearing completion. The productivity achieved has been dramatic. The most recent vessel was built with 55 per cent. of the man hours that the first one required.
In 1982, Vosper Thornycroft was selected to undertake the detailed design of the new GRP single role minehunter, the first of which is now being built. The single role

minehunter basic design contract report in 1983 concluded that orders for the next four in the class would be placed in the spring of 1987, to be built sequentially at six month intervals, with two ships per year thereafter. This programme has remained unaltered since then, the expectation being that on the launch of the last of the Hunter class, work on the second of the single role minehunters would start, but rumours are now circulating, which have not been denied, that the Ministry of Defence is thinking of putting back the single role minehunter programme. If that were to happen, it would be catastrophic.
May I spell out to my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State the reasons why that would be shortsighted and pound foolish. I ask him to have particular regard to the relatively small savings that could accrue to the Ministry of Defence and to what would be jeopardised by the deferment. A one-year deferment would save the Government £7 million in the first year and £16 million in the second, but it would result in at least 650 additional redundancies and the break-up of experienced, specialist teams of men. Quite apart from the loss of productive efficiency, the Ministry of Defence would incur additional costs over the protracted period of about £9 million. Equally crucial and relevant is the fact that the single role minehunter has outstanding export potential. I welcome the strong emphasis on export potential as a key part of procurement policy that is contained in the latest defence White Paper. The Belgian navy and the Spanish navy are already interested in the single role minehunter, and there is no doubt that many other countries are also interested in it.
The United Kingdom must not throw away its preeminent position. It would be a false economy of the highest order were the single role minehunter programme to be allowed to slip. It is not possible, in my view, to exaggerate the dire consequences for Vosper Thornycroft and its employees were that to happen.
I have taken up a lot of time on the issue of the single role minehunter, because I am far from certain that the Government appreciate how crucial it is. I am sure that my hon. Friend will expect me to refer also to the negotiations over the frigates for Pakistan. I hope that he will be able to emphasise in his reply all the work that the Government have done and are doing to try to secure this contract, which would safeguard existing jobs and generate up to 1,000 more jobs in Southampton. The negotiations with Pakistan seem to have been continuing for years. Indeed, the letter of intent was signed in September 1984.
There is now a strong feeling in Southampton that we would have won a Ministry of Defence frigate order but for the prospects in Pakistan. We do not ask for special favours, merely for fair and open competitive tendering for Ministry of Defence orders. If there is a prospect of losing, or not winning, the Pakistan order because of changes of mind by the Pakistan Government, I urge upon the Government the need to ensure that a frigate-building programme can be maintained in the south of England.
The issue of whether tenders are fairly assessed is crucial. In the United States, unsuccessful tenderers are invited to what is effectively a debriefing to be told the terms of the successful bid and why their bids were not successful. In that way, justice can be seen to be done. Many people in Southampton do not believe that justice was seen to be done when the previous frigate orders were


placed, and I should be grateful if my hon. Friend could assure me that the lowest bidder for the next frigate orders will win the contract.
Similar principles apply to shiprepair in Southampton, which is dominated by two firms—Thew Engineering and the newly privatised Vosper Shiprepairers. I expect that both firms will be bidding for the refit of the Royal Yacht Britannia, and I seek an assurance that price and quality will be the sole criteria used for the award of that contract.
During the past few months there has been a sad development in Southampton with the demise of Vosper Hovermarine, which has been in the hands of a receiver and is still the subject of an attempted rescue package, perhaps involving an American company. But that company, which only three years ago employed 500 people, now employs only 20. It operates in the forefront of technology with its surface effect ships. It was almost wholly oriented towards exports and won the Queen's award for export achievement in 1984. It has not received much assistance from the Government. I merely mention that to draw attention to the contrast with the way in which Government money has been forthcoming for other activities in the shipbuilding world.
Sotonians are not given to hyperbole or exaggeration. They are easy-going and even-tempered and make loyal and efficient employees. That is why so many of them have been attracted to work in Wapping. All they ask is that they be treated fairly. Above all, they must not be forgotten. At a time when shipbuilding problems in the north have been the focus of attention, I hope that raising these vital issues concerning Southampton will give the Government a bit of balance in their approach to the issues and help them to realise that Southampton has also suffered from the problems of shiprepair and shipbuilding. It must not be forgotten. I know that my hon. Friend the Member for Eastleigh wishes to speak, so although it is only 9.28am, I shall sit down.

Mr. Nigel Spearing: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. Am I right in thiking that if this debate continues after 9.30 am, all the business set down for Friday, including the debate on the motion of my hon. Friend the Member for Linlithgow (Mr. Dalyell), will not take place? An odd 18 minutes or so may prevent Friday's business, which is of interest to House and the public, from being debated.

Mr. Dennis Skinner: Further to that point of order, Mr. Speaker. It is only a small point, but the first debate on referring the Channel Tunnel Bill to a Select Committee began just after 10 pm and continued until about 4.30 am. That is a long time to discuss whether there should be nine or 11 hon. Members on the Select Committee. For the first time, as far as I can recall, a Government Whip did not move the closure on a Government measure. If a Government Whip had been prepared to move the closure, it would undoubtedly have been accepted by the Chair. That means that the filibuster — to use a loose term — or the long debate was organised not just by Tory Back Benchers but by the Government.

Several Hon. Members: rose—

Mr. Speaker: Mr. Franks.

Mr. Cecil Franks: Further to that point of order, Mr. Speaker. Like the hon. Member for Linlithgow (Mr. Dalyell), I, too, have an interest in the business projected for Friday. But, unlike the hon. Member for Bolsover (Mr. Skinner), I was present during those four or five hours of debate to which he referred, and I accept the sincerity of those Kent Members who argued their case. I hope that the hon. Member for Linlithgow will also accept that that was so.

Mr. Andrew F. Bennett: Further to that point of order, Mr. Speaker. My hon. Friend the Member for Newham, South (Mr. Spearing) raised the original point of order over the loss of Friday's business. I think you will recall that on your appointment to the Chair, you made it clear that you felt you had a responsibility to look after the rights of Back Benchers. As Friday's business was won on the private Members' motions Ballot, will you be considering what steps to take to ensure that time is found for Back Benchers to exercise the rights conferred on them by the House? Whether those rights were denied them by deliberate Government manoeuvre or merely by Conservative Back-Bench manoeuvre, there would seem to be considerable duty on the House to find another occasion for my hon. Friend the Member for Linlithgow (Mr. Dalyell) to move his motion.

Mr. Speaker: I confirm to the hon. Member for Newham, South (Mr. Spearing) that at 9.31 we are still discussing Thursday's business, and therefore Friday's business cannot proceed.
It is perfectly true, as I have made plain, that an hon. Member who has won a place in the ballot has a right to move his motion, provided that it is in order. In this case it was in order, and the hon. Member concerned would have had every right to move it. The House will recognise that throughout these proceedings it has been the concern of the Chair to ensure that speeches are in order. Although some of the debates may have been rather long, they were in order, and I have no jurisdiction to go beyond that.

Mr. Bennett: Further to that point of order, Mr. Speaker. I accept that there can be no criticism of the debates that took place. But if a manoeuvre results in the small number of days that are set aside for private Benchers' motions being reduced, there would seem to be some duty on the Chair at least to try to influence events so that an alternative date may be found for the debate on those motions.

Mr. Speaker: But I do not have that authority. The House itself decides how many days should be set aside for Back-Bench motions and Back-Bench time generally. It is not a matter for the Chair.

Several Hon. Members: rose——

Mr. Speaker: Mr. Bennett.

Mr. Bennett: As the House has passed a resolution that a certain number of days should be set aside for private Members' Bills and motions, does not the Chair have some responsibility to ensure that it is carried out?

Mr. Speaker: Unfortunately, the Chair has no responsibility for that. I say again that my main concern is always to ensure that fairness is maintained in the Chamber and that, in particular, the rights and interests of Back Benchers are protected. Sadly, I have no authority to do what the hon. Gentleman wishes me to do.

Sir David Price: Hon. Members have been raising points of order about the rights of Back Benchers, but my poor old hon. Friend the Member for Southampton, Itchen (Mr. Chope) has now lost some of the time allotted to him for his half hour Adjournment debate. But with his permission. and that of the House, I shall reinforce what my hon. Friend the Member for Itchen has said. As he pointed out, the main shipyard in the Southampton area is in my constituency.
I shall stress in particular the points that my hon. Friend made about the importance of the single role mine hunter. We require assurances from the Ministry of Defence about the ordering programme for it. I remind my hon. Friend the Minister that the basic design contract report on the single role mine hunter, which came out in 1983, concluded that after the order for the lead ship—the first of class—had been started orders for 02–05 would be placed in the spring of 1987, and that thereafter ships would be required at the rate of two a year. It is vital that that programme should be maintained. If it is not maintained, my hon. Friend the Member for Itchen has pointed out some of the penalties that we would pay not only in employment but in maintaining the integrity of our design teams.
The order for the single role mine hunter differs from many other naval orders in that it involves new technology in which Vosper Thornycroft leads, I hesitate to say the world, but certainly Europe. From an export point of view, it is essential that it should be enabled to maintain the programme's momentum. It is not a queston of there being competing tenders. I understand that the Ministry of Defence is quite satisfied about the ability and integrity of the ships that Vosper Thornycroft builds, but the problems stems from cash flow problems within the Ministry.
Whatever else is "phased back"—I think that that is the phrase used in the Ministry of Defence—I ask that it should not be the single role mine hunter programme. At this late—or is it early—hour, that is the only point that I wish to make in reinforcing the admirable arguments deployed by my hon. Friend the Member for Itchen.

The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Trade and Industry (Mr. John Butcher): I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Southampton, Itchen (Mr. Chope) on his tenacity in staying with us for so long in order to defend the interest of his constituents, particularly those who work directly or indirectly in the shipbuilding, shiprepair and, indeed, boat building industry. We have shared debates on this sort of topic several times, and he will know that we have have discovered through the economists that about 80 per cent. of the United Kingdom's manufacturing output can be defined as internationally tradeable whereas only about 18 per cent. of service sector activity is so tradeable.
Therefore, any debate that tackles the question of the maintenance of a strong manufacturing base is to be welcome, as that is at the heart of Britain's economic performance and the quality of life of our people. My hon. Friend will know that Britain's share of the world's traded manufactures fell from 14 per cent. in 1964 to about 8 per cent. in 1979. The CBI has told us that each 1 per cent. represents a loss of about 250,000 jobs. Thus, the framework against which my hon. Friend has sought this

debate on behalf of Southampton's work force is very important. I know that my hon. Friend also holds very strong views on the matter.
I shall, of course, deal with the single role mine hunter, but I begin by saying that the refit of Brittania is under consideration. As my hon. Friend will expect me to say, it is, however, a matter for my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Defence. But, as my hon. Friend the Member for Eastleigh (Sir D. Price) reminded me, I shall draw it, among other things, to the attention of my right hon. Friend.
Understandably, my hon. Friend the Member for Itchen began the major part of his speech with a resume of the position at Vosper Thornycroft. It is the largest of the Southampton shipbuilders and one of Britain's premier warship yards. It employs more than 2,700 people in Southampton and Portsmouth. Vosper Thornycroft in many ways exemplifies the attributes that are the strength of Southampton.
The company has been in Southampton since the beginning of the century, when John I. Thornycroft and Co. Ltd. of Chiswick moved to the city. Thornycrofts merged with Vosper and Co. Ltd. of Portsmouth in 1966. Since then, Vosper Thornycroft's main yard has been Woolston in Southampton, where it can build conventional steel hull ships up to 8,000 tonnes, such as frigates, and glass reinforced plastic vessels such as the ultra modern mine counter measures vessels and the single role mine hunters. The order for the first of class single role mine hunter was placed only last year.
Vosper Thornycroft can claim 20 years service to 30 navies. By any yardstick, that is an impressive record. Part of the company's strength has lain in its ability to adapt and to create designs to suit the individual prefrences of overseas customers. Consequently, more than half of its turnover comes from exports of ships and from its products and support services divisions. While Vosper Thornycroft is indeed a shipbuilder, it is much more. In a way typical of Southampton, it has branched out into associated businesses, such as the design and manufacture of hydraulic power equipment, the supply of support services such as training, technical handbooks, maintenance and spares, and the design and manufacture of high technology electronic control equipment for the marine and energy industries. Those products include training simulators, distribution systems, surveillance systems and machinery controls.
Vosper Thornycroft has an impressive past, and, I am sure, an exciting future, but I am aware that, in its main line of business — warship building — it faces critical order problems which rightly worry my hon. Friends. As my hon. Friend the Member for Itchen said, the company is also greatly affected by changes in defence expenditure. Major delays in orders for further single role mine hunters could have a serious impact on its ability to maintain its advanced GRP capability. I say that in the knowledge that the company's only competitor in that area has already had to mothball its similar facility. That presents a pointed and timely example.
I congratulate my hon. Friend on seeking this moment to speak about the maintenance of a strategic capability in the United Kingdom industry which his constituents understandably want to be maintained. The order for frigates for Pakistan has been the subject of prolonged discussions. Throughout, the Government have given Vosper Thornycroft all possible support. My hon. Friend


will appreciate my reluctance to say anything that may prejudice the negotiations, but I can assure him that we are continuing in the hope of securing the contract.
Although Vosper Thornycroft is a company in a so-called traditional sector, it is operating at the forefront of technology. It is no wonder that British Shipbuilders had keen competition when it put the company on the market last year. I am sure that the whole House will wish the winning management buy-out team, led by the managing director, Mr. Peter Usher, every success in the future, especially in the immediate future, bearing in mind the state of current orders.
Vosper Ship repairers Ltd. is part of the equation of capability in Southampton. I should like to take this opportunity to commend the courage, enterprise and determination that fuelled the Vosper Thornycroft management. It is shared by others in Southampton, including others in the troubled shipbuilding and shiprepair industries. Vosper Shiprepairers was also bought from British Shipbuilders last year by its top management. This time last year, there was a strong possibility that Vosper Shiprepairers would have to be closed, but its top management—Mr. John Collins and Mr. Colin Johnson—had confidence in their ability to win orders once freed from the shackles of state ownership. After a difficult start, their confidence is being shown to be well founded, as Vosper Shiprepairers has already secured several major orders, most notably the National Environmental Research Council's scientific research vessel and the ship, previously HMS Hydra, which is being refurbished for the Indonesian navy. Those orders have reversed its recent fortunes, and I am sure that the House will join me in wishing Vosper Shiprepairers every success in the future.
I recognise that there are special difficulties faced by Vosper Hovermarine which, with its parent company, Vosper plc, has recently been put into receivership. I was naturally very sorry to learn of the problems facing this marine and engineering group.
As my hon. Friend knows, significant Government support has been given to the hovercraft activities since

1980, when the hovercraft company was acquired by Vosper plc, and previously. In the mid-1970s the National Research Development Corporation assisted in funancing the development of the company's series of sidewall hovercraft, known as a surface effect ship. More recently, in 1984, the British Technology Group, as successors to the NRDC, agreed to convert into equity in Vosper plc, the £2·2 million of debt owed to it by Vosper Hovermarine in order to help the company's financial position.
In addition, my Department has funded two phases of development of the current 700 series — a sidewall hovercraft of about 600 tonnes designed to operate in high wind conditions. Assistance for a further phase of development was about to be considered when the receivers were appointed.
It has been asked whether more could have been done to save the group from receivership. Although my hon. Friends have not raised the matter, it is a source of prolonged agony for commentators in the area, so I should like to deal with it. The decision to appoint the receivers was a matter for the group's bankers. It appears that neither the bankers nor the shareholders felt able to give the further financial support that would have been necessary to keep the group in business. As ever, this was a commercial decision and, in the circumstances, there was nothing that my Department could do. I suspect that the legislative framework for the type of operation that has been suggested does not exist.
Although the appointment of the receivers will have come as a major disappointment to all involved with the group, I hope that it will prove possible for the receivers to find someone to come forward and acquire the whole hovercraft operation or, at least, the very advanced technology that has been developed. My officials have been in close touch with the directors and with the receivers, and I know that every effort has been made to inform those who may be interested—

The Question having been proposed after Ten o'clock on Thursday evening, and the debate having continued for half an hour, MR. SPEAKER adjourned the House without Question put, pursuant to the Standing Order.

Adjourned at thirteen minutes to Ten o'clock am on Friday 6 June 1986.